Woman Wanted
Premise: A Yale professor (Michael Moriarty) hires a woman (Helen Hunter) to care for his house and mind his estranged, adult, quasi-shut-in, poet son (Kiefer Sutherland). Both men fall in love with her, and she teaches them to love each other.
Alright, when I first read that title, I was a little concerned about what would follow. Worry ye not, no porn here. In fact, while sex is discussed and inferred, you never see any, so feel better now.
Back to the review: Have you ever eaten baking soda? I'm not suggesting that you all go try it, but I think that most of us have, having been children, eaten a great number of things that we shouldn't have (boiled potatoes among my many). In any case, baking soda gives you a revolting basic taste in your mouth that makes you run your teeth over your tongue in an effort to rid yourself of it.
And that taste was left in my mouth by this movie. To be honest, I don't really know what happened here. Sutherland originally directed the film, but, when he saw the "finished" product, he demanded that he not be credited because the movie was not what he wanted. He claims that something went horribly wrong in the editing room, and that all the scenes that tied the story together had been cut.
In this case, I am inclined to believe him. The plot is just plain nuts. I spent the majority of the time going, "what? what?!". Now, I know I do that a lot, but here it was well deserved. Sutherland's character is wildly anxious, Moriarty's overly lonely, and Hunter's just odd. I understand the motivation behind all their actions, but I feel it was poorly explained in the film. Also, the score made it come across like a Hallmark-made-for-TV-warm-fuzzy instead of the heart string tugging drama it could have been.
If it wasn't clear, this movie left a bad taste in my mouth. I do not recommend it. It is lacking. Lacking in style, in grace, in sense. Great performers, possibly great performances, lay in shreds on the editing room floor.
Sunday, February 29, 2004
Saturday, February 28, 2004
Hamlet
Premise: A prince returns to his family's kingdom to avenge his father's death. In this version, Hamlet (Ethan Hawke) is a disillusioned university student, and Denmark is a corporation. If, for some reason you are unfamiliar with the rest, Hamlet's father, Hamlet Sr. (Sam Shepard), tells Hamlet Jr. that his brother, Claudius (Kyle MacLachlan) killed him to steal his queen, Gertrude (Diane Venora), and his throne. Also, Hamlet Jr. was having a secret affair with Ophelia (Julia Stiles), who is the daughter of Polonius (Bill Murray), the court advisor, and the sister of his friend, Laertes (Liev Schriber).
Okay, that's close enough to what happens. It's one of Shakespeare's four great tragedies, so I bet you can guess what happens in the end. Also, I bet when you saw Hamlet in bold there, you wondering which version I would write about. Guess what?! I am going to tell you about the latest and shortest version I have ever seen on film. Excitement!
So, if you are looking for a version that is literal visual representation of Shakespeare, this isn't it. If that is the case, get the Kenneth Branagh version. In fact, Branagh seems to believe himself to be the crowned prince of Shakespeare, so you can trust him to deliver whatever Shakespeare would have wanted.
Enough about Branagh. This version was directed by Michael Almereyda, who seeks to do visually what Shakespeare often did with his plays. Shakespeare, although a dirty old man highly concerned with sex and death (aren't we all?), focused very heavily on imagery and metaphor to bring meaning to his plays. Almereyda often uses the visual image to suggest much of what is cut out of the script: Shakespeare's Hamlet is four hours long; Almereyda's Hamlet is under two. You will find that conversations, monologues, and soliloquies are cut up or voiced over images not mentioned in the script. He also uses the modern time/space setting (2000, New York City) to suggest meaning beyond what Shakespeare had written. My personal favourite: the "to be or not to be" soliloquy in a Blockbuster. You figure it out.
Another thing I love about this film is that many of the actors have portrayed Hamlet at one time or another (e.g. Sam Shepard, Kyle MacLachan, Diane Venora). Although the iambic pantametre is abandonned in favour of making the speeches sound more realistic, none of these actors allow nuance to slip through their fingers. Venora and Murray especially bring rich drama to their roles.
Now, as you may know, if it's Shakespeare, then there must be a hundred or more theories swirling about each and every syllable, from Hamlet's inaction to his love for Ophelia, from Gertrude's foreknowledge of the murder to the passionate scene when Hamlet confronts her. I believe that Almereyda suggests that the answer to these questions is summed in his chosen profession: Hamlet appears to be some sort of amateur, indie filmmaker.
I was thinking that I don't want to give it away, but, c'mon, who doesn't already know the story? Okay, here's what I get from Almereyda: Hamlet overthinks the whole thing and really does love Ophelia; Gertrude probably did know but couldn't deal, and there is no incest. The film/play is concerned with the relationships between parents and children (specifically fathers and sons), but it's a different kind of love than what many are thinking of.
Overall, this is an art film of a heavy subject. You may not be ready for it.
Premise: A prince returns to his family's kingdom to avenge his father's death. In this version, Hamlet (Ethan Hawke) is a disillusioned university student, and Denmark is a corporation. If, for some reason you are unfamiliar with the rest, Hamlet's father, Hamlet Sr. (Sam Shepard), tells Hamlet Jr. that his brother, Claudius (Kyle MacLachlan) killed him to steal his queen, Gertrude (Diane Venora), and his throne. Also, Hamlet Jr. was having a secret affair with Ophelia (Julia Stiles), who is the daughter of Polonius (Bill Murray), the court advisor, and the sister of his friend, Laertes (Liev Schriber).
Okay, that's close enough to what happens. It's one of Shakespeare's four great tragedies, so I bet you can guess what happens in the end. Also, I bet when you saw Hamlet in bold there, you wondering which version I would write about. Guess what?! I am going to tell you about the latest and shortest version I have ever seen on film. Excitement!
So, if you are looking for a version that is literal visual representation of Shakespeare, this isn't it. If that is the case, get the Kenneth Branagh version. In fact, Branagh seems to believe himself to be the crowned prince of Shakespeare, so you can trust him to deliver whatever Shakespeare would have wanted.
Enough about Branagh. This version was directed by Michael Almereyda, who seeks to do visually what Shakespeare often did with his plays. Shakespeare, although a dirty old man highly concerned with sex and death (aren't we all?), focused very heavily on imagery and metaphor to bring meaning to his plays. Almereyda often uses the visual image to suggest much of what is cut out of the script: Shakespeare's Hamlet is four hours long; Almereyda's Hamlet is under two. You will find that conversations, monologues, and soliloquies are cut up or voiced over images not mentioned in the script. He also uses the modern time/space setting (2000, New York City) to suggest meaning beyond what Shakespeare had written. My personal favourite: the "to be or not to be" soliloquy in a Blockbuster. You figure it out.
Another thing I love about this film is that many of the actors have portrayed Hamlet at one time or another (e.g. Sam Shepard, Kyle MacLachan, Diane Venora). Although the iambic pantametre is abandonned in favour of making the speeches sound more realistic, none of these actors allow nuance to slip through their fingers. Venora and Murray especially bring rich drama to their roles.
Now, as you may know, if it's Shakespeare, then there must be a hundred or more theories swirling about each and every syllable, from Hamlet's inaction to his love for Ophelia, from Gertrude's foreknowledge of the murder to the passionate scene when Hamlet confronts her. I believe that Almereyda suggests that the answer to these questions is summed in his chosen profession: Hamlet appears to be some sort of amateur, indie filmmaker.
I was thinking that I don't want to give it away, but, c'mon, who doesn't already know the story? Okay, here's what I get from Almereyda: Hamlet overthinks the whole thing and really does love Ophelia; Gertrude probably did know but couldn't deal, and there is no incest. The film/play is concerned with the relationships between parents and children (specifically fathers and sons), but it's a different kind of love than what many are thinking of.
Overall, this is an art film of a heavy subject. You may not be ready for it.
Friday, February 27, 2004
Memento
Premise: Did you ever see the backwards episode of Seinfeld? Well, it's like that, only not as funny. Leonard (Guy Pierce) seeks to avenge the rape and murder of his wife with the help of a police officer, Teddy (Joe Pantoliano), and a waitress, Natalie (Carrie-Anne Moss).
The film does indeed go backwards from the death of Leonard's suspect to his clues of who the subject was/is. It also goes forwards in black and white to tell a similar, but equally disturbing, tale. Some flashbacks are in colour, others black and white. I'm sure you can pick up the significance of this one. The reason the film itself goes backwards is Leonard was smacked in the head during the attack on his wife, and he suffers from anterograde memory loss. Basically, he cannot form new memories. By consequence, the film occurs in fifteen minute segments like Leonard's memory does. You'll notice that a heightened anxiety level shortens those segments.
This film is powerful. Christopher Nolan's direction is masterful. He has a gift for timing, creating and sustaining suspense as time goes backwards and forwards simultaneously. He adapted the screenplay from a short-story by his brother, Jonathan Nolan. I believe because he was close enough to the writer to do so that his adapted screenplay is better than many out there, and, thus, he garnered himself an Academy Award nomination.
Guy Pierce, although he has gone on to some questionable material, is provocative as the crippled and crippling Leonard Shelby. Movies are generally shot out of sequence, so the case could be made that acting in this film is no different than any other. I disagree. Pierce must inhabit a character who does not inhabit his own body. His disturbing quest to avenge his wife's death is his only motive to get up in the morning, and, even then, his first thoughts are not of her. Because, as he says, he "can't remember to forget [her]." What I found to be the most sad of all was his first thought when he does wake up: "Awake." I couldn't imagine what it must be like to live when life holds no meaning for you.
Carrie-Anne Moss, who pushed to have Joe Pantoliano hired, and Pantoliano himself are excellent supporting actors. They shape the film's mood because they shape the actions of Leonard. They both seem to know their power, and their performances are demonstrative of such.
I have to admit, no matter how many times I watch the film, I find myself rooting for the wrong guy. You'll see what I mean.
Overall, this film is the best of 2000. If you haven't already seen it, then you should. Take time to watch it. Take time to savour it, to ponder it. It will control you, if only for couple of hours.
Premise: Did you ever see the backwards episode of Seinfeld? Well, it's like that, only not as funny. Leonard (Guy Pierce) seeks to avenge the rape and murder of his wife with the help of a police officer, Teddy (Joe Pantoliano), and a waitress, Natalie (Carrie-Anne Moss).
The film does indeed go backwards from the death of Leonard's suspect to his clues of who the subject was/is. It also goes forwards in black and white to tell a similar, but equally disturbing, tale. Some flashbacks are in colour, others black and white. I'm sure you can pick up the significance of this one. The reason the film itself goes backwards is Leonard was smacked in the head during the attack on his wife, and he suffers from anterograde memory loss. Basically, he cannot form new memories. By consequence, the film occurs in fifteen minute segments like Leonard's memory does. You'll notice that a heightened anxiety level shortens those segments.
This film is powerful. Christopher Nolan's direction is masterful. He has a gift for timing, creating and sustaining suspense as time goes backwards and forwards simultaneously. He adapted the screenplay from a short-story by his brother, Jonathan Nolan. I believe because he was close enough to the writer to do so that his adapted screenplay is better than many out there, and, thus, he garnered himself an Academy Award nomination.
Guy Pierce, although he has gone on to some questionable material, is provocative as the crippled and crippling Leonard Shelby. Movies are generally shot out of sequence, so the case could be made that acting in this film is no different than any other. I disagree. Pierce must inhabit a character who does not inhabit his own body. His disturbing quest to avenge his wife's death is his only motive to get up in the morning, and, even then, his first thoughts are not of her. Because, as he says, he "can't remember to forget [her]." What I found to be the most sad of all was his first thought when he does wake up: "Awake." I couldn't imagine what it must be like to live when life holds no meaning for you.
Carrie-Anne Moss, who pushed to have Joe Pantoliano hired, and Pantoliano himself are excellent supporting actors. They shape the film's mood because they shape the actions of Leonard. They both seem to know their power, and their performances are demonstrative of such.
I have to admit, no matter how many times I watch the film, I find myself rooting for the wrong guy. You'll see what I mean.
Overall, this film is the best of 2000. If you haven't already seen it, then you should. Take time to watch it. Take time to savour it, to ponder it. It will control you, if only for couple of hours.
Thursday, February 26, 2004
Grosse Pointe Blank
Plot: A professional killer, Martin Q. Blank (John Cusack), goes to his high school reunion in the hopes of winning back his high school sweetheart, Debi Newberry (Minnie Driver), whom he stood up on prom night. At the same time, a fellow hitman, Grocer (Dan Aykroyd), and the government try to take Martin out.
Just in case you don't know, Grosse Pointe is the well to-do section of derelict Detroit.
Hilarious! As you may know, I think John Cusack is just about the best, and he does a tremendous job with Tom Janiewicz's sparkling script. He also does two other things I notice about many of his films: 1) his sister, Joan, is in it. She plays his secretary/receptionist/assistant. 2) Jeremy Piven plays his high school best friend and, I suspect, is his best friend in real life. They have amazing chemistry together. Also, if you subscribe to the idiom "a friend will help you move; a best friend will help you move a body", then Piven is worth his weight in gold.
To be honest, I don't think I've seen anything else directed by George Armitage. The Big Bounce, which either is out now or will be out soon, is his handiwork if you decide that you like him. It was very nicely done, I feel. He has a good sense of comedy. However, when I googled him, I saw he also directed something called Private Duty Nurses, so I do not recommend checking out his earlier work.
As with every John Cusack movie I have ever seen, it is lovely and well worth the rental fee. I say "lovely" because he does both drama and comedy, and he does them both very well. Now I have begun wondering about comedic actors who do comedy. Some of them get away with it, and some don't. I recall that in French we learned that an "acteur/actrice" was someone who could do a specific genre, but a "comedien/comedienne" was someone who could do any genre. So I tip my hat to John Cusack, a true comedien.
Last little note: the scenes Cusack shares with his therapist, played by Alan Arkin, are fabulous.
Plot: A professional killer, Martin Q. Blank (John Cusack), goes to his high school reunion in the hopes of winning back his high school sweetheart, Debi Newberry (Minnie Driver), whom he stood up on prom night. At the same time, a fellow hitman, Grocer (Dan Aykroyd), and the government try to take Martin out.
Just in case you don't know, Grosse Pointe is the well to-do section of derelict Detroit.
Hilarious! As you may know, I think John Cusack is just about the best, and he does a tremendous job with Tom Janiewicz's sparkling script. He also does two other things I notice about many of his films: 1) his sister, Joan, is in it. She plays his secretary/receptionist/assistant. 2) Jeremy Piven plays his high school best friend and, I suspect, is his best friend in real life. They have amazing chemistry together. Also, if you subscribe to the idiom "a friend will help you move; a best friend will help you move a body", then Piven is worth his weight in gold.
To be honest, I don't think I've seen anything else directed by George Armitage. The Big Bounce, which either is out now or will be out soon, is his handiwork if you decide that you like him. It was very nicely done, I feel. He has a good sense of comedy. However, when I googled him, I saw he also directed something called Private Duty Nurses, so I do not recommend checking out his earlier work.
As with every John Cusack movie I have ever seen, it is lovely and well worth the rental fee. I say "lovely" because he does both drama and comedy, and he does them both very well. Now I have begun wondering about comedic actors who do comedy. Some of them get away with it, and some don't. I recall that in French we learned that an "acteur/actrice" was someone who could do a specific genre, but a "comedien/comedienne" was someone who could do any genre. So I tip my hat to John Cusack, a true comedien.
Last little note: the scenes Cusack shares with his therapist, played by Alan Arkin, are fabulous.
Wednesday, February 25, 2004
13 conversations about one thing
Plot: This one is going to be difficult . . . here we go. The complex weave of a boss obsessed with "knocking the smile off" a rather happy employee, an executive in a spiral of depression after driving drunk, a maid in love with one of her clients gets hit by a car, a man leaves his wife to discover that his lover doesn't want to leave her husband, the boss' son involved with drugs, and it goes on.
To be honest, it isn't that difficult to keep up with the plot while you are watching the movie. I apparently should have taken notes in order to recall it later.
The film is divided up into chunks that are introduced by a sentence that one of the characters will say in the next scene, e.g. "18 inches of personal space". I liked that. It gave the intertwined plot more meaning, making the stories almost more theatrical. I don't mean that in an overdone way.
The film is impressive, the script, by Jill and Karen Sprecher, is well written, and the ensemble cast plays beautifully. The problem is that the film tries to be Magnolia. Magnolia is a brilliant film, but Magnolia it cannot be. And I think that's okay. I just don't think that they think that's okay.
Following my interpersonal communication class, I now believe this film is about self-disclosure, but you can decide for yourself. I will end with some wisdom from the film and for the film: "Life, it only makes sense backwards. Too bad we have to live it forwards."
Plot: This one is going to be difficult . . . here we go. The complex weave of a boss obsessed with "knocking the smile off" a rather happy employee, an executive in a spiral of depression after driving drunk, a maid in love with one of her clients gets hit by a car, a man leaves his wife to discover that his lover doesn't want to leave her husband, the boss' son involved with drugs, and it goes on.
To be honest, it isn't that difficult to keep up with the plot while you are watching the movie. I apparently should have taken notes in order to recall it later.
The film is divided up into chunks that are introduced by a sentence that one of the characters will say in the next scene, e.g. "18 inches of personal space". I liked that. It gave the intertwined plot more meaning, making the stories almost more theatrical. I don't mean that in an overdone way.
The film is impressive, the script, by Jill and Karen Sprecher, is well written, and the ensemble cast plays beautifully. The problem is that the film tries to be Magnolia. Magnolia is a brilliant film, but Magnolia it cannot be. And I think that's okay. I just don't think that they think that's okay.
Following my interpersonal communication class, I now believe this film is about self-disclosure, but you can decide for yourself. I will end with some wisdom from the film and for the film: "Life, it only makes sense backwards. Too bad we have to live it forwards."
Tuesday, February 24, 2004
True Romance
Brief: Christian Slater meets Patricia Arquette. After they have sex, he discovers that she is a call girl hired by his boss. They get married, and he goes to her pimp to pick up her stuff. He kills her pimp because he beats up women and was going to come after them, and he accidentally takes the wrong suitcase. He grabs one filled with uncut cocaine, and they decide to go on the run and sell it. Craziness ensues.
So I watched this movie because someone told me that it was my kind of movie. It was written by Quentin Tarentino and directed by Tony Scott. I get the impression that people consider me a Quentin Tarentino kind of girl. To be honest, I'm not sure why. Previous to this, I had seen one, only one, Quentin Tarentino movie: Four Rooms. And, I swear, I'm the only person who has ever seen Four Rooms. I was quite young then, and I thought it was really weird. Other than that, I have little to no Quentin Tarentino experience, but I do know that he loves his violence. In fact, I understand that usually everyone dies in his movies.
That said, this movie is crazy. At first I was really excited as the opening credits rolled by because it is a star-studded extravaganza! Let me name off some names for you - Dennis Hopper, Christopher Walken, Chris Penn, Tom Seizmore, Michael Rappaport, Brad Pitt, James Gandolfini, Val Kilmer. Okay, it's mostly men, I see. Whatever.
But, as the movie rolled by, I became more and more upset. I found myself yelling about how this movie was by crazy people, about crazy people, and for crazy people. It sounded like this, "This movie is crazy! It's for crazy people! Crazy people!" Apparently, it is believed that that is what I like.
Well, I don't know. The movie had tons of violence/nudity/sexuality/coarse language. I've noticed that I rented the director's cut, so it is possible that the regular version has less of all the above.
I'd love to give you an opinion, people. Even now, days later, I find myself just muttering "crazy" under my breath when I look at it, which, in turn, makes me look even crazier. I admit that much of what happens is funny, especially Brad Pitt's character, Floyd. In the end, I have no opinion. It's just crazy. That is my opinion. If you want crazy, go ahead and rent it.
Brief: Christian Slater meets Patricia Arquette. After they have sex, he discovers that she is a call girl hired by his boss. They get married, and he goes to her pimp to pick up her stuff. He kills her pimp because he beats up women and was going to come after them, and he accidentally takes the wrong suitcase. He grabs one filled with uncut cocaine, and they decide to go on the run and sell it. Craziness ensues.
So I watched this movie because someone told me that it was my kind of movie. It was written by Quentin Tarentino and directed by Tony Scott. I get the impression that people consider me a Quentin Tarentino kind of girl. To be honest, I'm not sure why. Previous to this, I had seen one, only one, Quentin Tarentino movie: Four Rooms. And, I swear, I'm the only person who has ever seen Four Rooms. I was quite young then, and I thought it was really weird. Other than that, I have little to no Quentin Tarentino experience, but I do know that he loves his violence. In fact, I understand that usually everyone dies in his movies.
That said, this movie is crazy. At first I was really excited as the opening credits rolled by because it is a star-studded extravaganza! Let me name off some names for you - Dennis Hopper, Christopher Walken, Chris Penn, Tom Seizmore, Michael Rappaport, Brad Pitt, James Gandolfini, Val Kilmer. Okay, it's mostly men, I see. Whatever.
But, as the movie rolled by, I became more and more upset. I found myself yelling about how this movie was by crazy people, about crazy people, and for crazy people. It sounded like this, "This movie is crazy! It's for crazy people! Crazy people!" Apparently, it is believed that that is what I like.
Well, I don't know. The movie had tons of violence/nudity/sexuality/coarse language. I've noticed that I rented the director's cut, so it is possible that the regular version has less of all the above.
I'd love to give you an opinion, people. Even now, days later, I find myself just muttering "crazy" under my breath when I look at it, which, in turn, makes me look even crazier. I admit that much of what happens is funny, especially Brad Pitt's character, Floyd. In the end, I have no opinion. It's just crazy. That is my opinion. If you want crazy, go ahead and rent it.
Monday, February 23, 2004
Beat
Premise: The true story of the 48 or so hours before Joan Vollmer's (Courtney Love), the second wife of William S. Burroughs (Kiefer Sutherland), death. Also, flashbacks of when and how Lucien Carr (Norman Reedus) killed Dave. Story slightly explained by Allen Ginsberg (Ron Livingston).
If you aren't familiar with beat writing or its authors, the historical context of this film may be lost on you. Jack Kerouac is probably best remembered as the definitive beat writer, but he only plays a small part in the film. His Electric Kool-Aid Acid Test is the best place to start if you are interested in learning more.
This film is dark. Very dark. It is concerned with a generation of alcohol-soaked drug addicts highly uncomfortable in their own skin. The way that Gary Walkow's script has the characters speaking to each other suggests that their minds are somehow apart from their bodies. They sound like people who must actually take the time to think before they speak, to slowly form their words and sentences with delicious intent, but they speak too quickly for that to be true. Perhaps the writer never turns off. It reminds me very much of the end of the Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock by T.S. Eliot.
Gary Walkow also directed, and he does a brilliant job of it, wringing emotional, exploitative performances from a deeply talented group. I would like to take a minute to point out that people should just leave Courtney Love alone. She is a beautiful and talented woman that shouldn't be blamed for being widowed.
The film is a scant 93 minutes, but its effect on you will last much longer. It is difficult to let go of something so sorrowful. It is difficult not to ponder to love between a husband and wife, and the nature of friendship. Are we drawn together by what we have in common or is there an unifying force that holds us together socially?
There is a question you will need to ask yourself when it is finished. Here it is - did he do it on purpose?
Premise: The true story of the 48 or so hours before Joan Vollmer's (Courtney Love), the second wife of William S. Burroughs (Kiefer Sutherland), death. Also, flashbacks of when and how Lucien Carr (Norman Reedus) killed Dave. Story slightly explained by Allen Ginsberg (Ron Livingston).
If you aren't familiar with beat writing or its authors, the historical context of this film may be lost on you. Jack Kerouac is probably best remembered as the definitive beat writer, but he only plays a small part in the film. His Electric Kool-Aid Acid Test is the best place to start if you are interested in learning more.
This film is dark. Very dark. It is concerned with a generation of alcohol-soaked drug addicts highly uncomfortable in their own skin. The way that Gary Walkow's script has the characters speaking to each other suggests that their minds are somehow apart from their bodies. They sound like people who must actually take the time to think before they speak, to slowly form their words and sentences with delicious intent, but they speak too quickly for that to be true. Perhaps the writer never turns off. It reminds me very much of the end of the Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock by T.S. Eliot.
Gary Walkow also directed, and he does a brilliant job of it, wringing emotional, exploitative performances from a deeply talented group. I would like to take a minute to point out that people should just leave Courtney Love alone. She is a beautiful and talented woman that shouldn't be blamed for being widowed.
The film is a scant 93 minutes, but its effect on you will last much longer. It is difficult to let go of something so sorrowful. It is difficult not to ponder to love between a husband and wife, and the nature of friendship. Are we drawn together by what we have in common or is there an unifying force that holds us together socially?
There is a question you will need to ask yourself when it is finished. Here it is - did he do it on purpose?
Sunday, February 22, 2004
Stand by Me
Premise: Based on Steven King's novella, The Body, the film follows the journey of four boys in the summer before the seventh grade to locate the body of another dead boy. Also, a gang of older boys eventually decide that they want to be known for locating the body and head on out, too. Richard Dreyfuss does an excellent narration.
This movie is so good. I do question the strange number of life or death situations that these twelve year-olds seem to get into, but it is nothing too unbelievable about it. In fact, despite being a Steven King story, it is highly believable.
The story centres around Gordie Lechance, who is played by Wil Wheaton. He does a good enough job, but young River Phoenix outshines him as Gordie's troubled and troublesome best friend, Chris Chambers. It's great to watch scenes between him and the scene-stealing gang leader Ace, played by Kiefer Sutherland. Also, you can glean some pearls of heterosexual wisdom from Ace if you listen carefully.
Did I mention that this is all set in the fifties? I know that may not seem like much now, but it does a lot for the plot and the characterization.
Spoiler! I don't want to ruin to movie for you, but you will appreciate it much more when you realize exactly whose dead body Gordie is really looking for. I guess that that isn't that much of a spoiler.
Overall, the film is about exactly what childhood friendship is about. It is passionate and fiercely loyal. Dreyfuss strings it all together with his witty and soulful narration. You'll like it - it is too difficult not to.
Premise: Based on Steven King's novella, The Body, the film follows the journey of four boys in the summer before the seventh grade to locate the body of another dead boy. Also, a gang of older boys eventually decide that they want to be known for locating the body and head on out, too. Richard Dreyfuss does an excellent narration.
This movie is so good. I do question the strange number of life or death situations that these twelve year-olds seem to get into, but it is nothing too unbelievable about it. In fact, despite being a Steven King story, it is highly believable.
The story centres around Gordie Lechance, who is played by Wil Wheaton. He does a good enough job, but young River Phoenix outshines him as Gordie's troubled and troublesome best friend, Chris Chambers. It's great to watch scenes between him and the scene-stealing gang leader Ace, played by Kiefer Sutherland. Also, you can glean some pearls of heterosexual wisdom from Ace if you listen carefully.
Did I mention that this is all set in the fifties? I know that may not seem like much now, but it does a lot for the plot and the characterization.
Spoiler! I don't want to ruin to movie for you, but you will appreciate it much more when you realize exactly whose dead body Gordie is really looking for. I guess that that isn't that much of a spoiler.
Overall, the film is about exactly what childhood friendship is about. It is passionate and fiercely loyal. Dreyfuss strings it all together with his witty and soulful narration. You'll like it - it is too difficult not to.
Saturday, February 21, 2004
In my defense
In my defense is not the title of a movie that I am going to review. I get the feeling that the rules here aren't very clear. In order for a movie to be reviewed, I must have seen the entire movie. I also like to avoid movies that are already highly critically acclaimed classics like The Godfather or Gone with the wind because I don't think there's much I could say about those that hasn't already been said. I like to stick to either newer movies, or movies that most people haven't heard of in order to educate you about the many great films out there. So here we go:
She's the one
Premise: Mickey picks up Hope in his cab and takes her to the airport. She convinces him to drive her to New Orleans, and, when they get back, they are married. Mickey's brother, Francis, is married to Renee but hasn't had sex with her in months because he is having an affair with Heather, who just happens to be Mickey's ex-fiancee. Mickey, Francis, and their father go on weekly fishing trips.
While the plot has ingenuity behind it, it is rather uninspired. The direction lacks creativity, and I seriously wonder about the acting. Let's take Edward Burns, who plays Mickey, for example. I used to think Edward Burns was a good actor. I thought his only flaw was that he never has any chemistry with any woman. Seriously, no on-screen chemistry. Now, I realize that he plays the same character every time. I understand not wanting to stray too far from where you came from, but this is too much. Think about any movie you have seen him in. Life, or something like it: Irish-catholic from Brooklyn. Saving Private Ryan: Irish-catholic from Brooklyn. His promising directorial debut, Sidewalks of New York: Irish-catholic from Brooklyn. And the movie in question, She's the one: IRISH-CATHOLIC FROM BROOKLYN!!!!!
I'm sure you are shocked. Don't get me wrong; I like Edward Burns. I am just starting to wonder about him. I also like Cameron Diaz as Heather before she lost crazy amounts of weight and started impersonating a walking stick bug. I like John Mahoney as the patriarch one seriously stupid Irish-Catholic family. But they aren't enough to save this movie from its own insipid plot. They try, they really do. There's just not enough there to work with.
Conclusion: Unless you happen to love Irish-Catholics from Brooklyn, then this movie probably isn't worth the rental fee. If you should, however, happen to come across it on cable on some lazy afternoon or quiet evening in, then give it a try. You can always post a comment on how much you hated it later.
In my defense is not the title of a movie that I am going to review. I get the feeling that the rules here aren't very clear. In order for a movie to be reviewed, I must have seen the entire movie. I also like to avoid movies that are already highly critically acclaimed classics like The Godfather or Gone with the wind because I don't think there's much I could say about those that hasn't already been said. I like to stick to either newer movies, or movies that most people haven't heard of in order to educate you about the many great films out there. So here we go:
She's the one
Premise: Mickey picks up Hope in his cab and takes her to the airport. She convinces him to drive her to New Orleans, and, when they get back, they are married. Mickey's brother, Francis, is married to Renee but hasn't had sex with her in months because he is having an affair with Heather, who just happens to be Mickey's ex-fiancee. Mickey, Francis, and their father go on weekly fishing trips.
While the plot has ingenuity behind it, it is rather uninspired. The direction lacks creativity, and I seriously wonder about the acting. Let's take Edward Burns, who plays Mickey, for example. I used to think Edward Burns was a good actor. I thought his only flaw was that he never has any chemistry with any woman. Seriously, no on-screen chemistry. Now, I realize that he plays the same character every time. I understand not wanting to stray too far from where you came from, but this is too much. Think about any movie you have seen him in. Life, or something like it: Irish-catholic from Brooklyn. Saving Private Ryan: Irish-catholic from Brooklyn. His promising directorial debut, Sidewalks of New York: Irish-catholic from Brooklyn. And the movie in question, She's the one: IRISH-CATHOLIC FROM BROOKLYN!!!!!
I'm sure you are shocked. Don't get me wrong; I like Edward Burns. I am just starting to wonder about him. I also like Cameron Diaz as Heather before she lost crazy amounts of weight and started impersonating a walking stick bug. I like John Mahoney as the patriarch one seriously stupid Irish-Catholic family. But they aren't enough to save this movie from its own insipid plot. They try, they really do. There's just not enough there to work with.
Conclusion: Unless you happen to love Irish-Catholics from Brooklyn, then this movie probably isn't worth the rental fee. If you should, however, happen to come across it on cable on some lazy afternoon or quiet evening in, then give it a try. You can always post a comment on how much you hated it later.
Friday, February 20, 2004
State and Main
In brief: A movie production descends on a small town. Comedic chaos ensues.
I don't even know where to start. How about telling you who is in the best ensemble comedy ever? We've got Philip Seymour Hoffman, William H. Macy, Julia Stiles, Sarah Jessica Parker, and Alec Baldwin, among others. And they all play off each other brilliantly. I tell you truly though, you will quickly discover how much more amusing the lives and ideas of the town's folk are compared to the antics of the actors. They provide all the best material.
Despite the fact that the plot and its events are a source of amusement, keep your ears open for the one-liners. I know, you might associate one-liners with things that aren't really funny to begin with, but you would be mistaken. In this case, they guarantee that you will never stop laughing.
David Mamet, the writer and director, is sometimes associated with some of his darker films such as Hannibal or Ronin, but I assure you that he does comedy just as well. In fact, he may do it even better. His timing is perfection itself. As for his writing, you will love the solutions he comes up with for such problems as pushing through a stain glass window and the fallout of a traffic accident.
Last little note: keep your eye on the town doctor. He is quite possibly the greatest source of amusement in the whole film if you are quick enough to catch it.
In brief: A movie production descends on a small town. Comedic chaos ensues.
I don't even know where to start. How about telling you who is in the best ensemble comedy ever? We've got Philip Seymour Hoffman, William H. Macy, Julia Stiles, Sarah Jessica Parker, and Alec Baldwin, among others. And they all play off each other brilliantly. I tell you truly though, you will quickly discover how much more amusing the lives and ideas of the town's folk are compared to the antics of the actors. They provide all the best material.
Despite the fact that the plot and its events are a source of amusement, keep your ears open for the one-liners. I know, you might associate one-liners with things that aren't really funny to begin with, but you would be mistaken. In this case, they guarantee that you will never stop laughing.
David Mamet, the writer and director, is sometimes associated with some of his darker films such as Hannibal or Ronin, but I assure you that he does comedy just as well. In fact, he may do it even better. His timing is perfection itself. As for his writing, you will love the solutions he comes up with for such problems as pushing through a stain glass window and the fallout of a traffic accident.
Last little note: keep your eye on the town doctor. He is quite possibly the greatest source of amusement in the whole film if you are quick enough to catch it.
Thursday, February 19, 2004
Pleasantville
Summary: Two nineties teens, David (Tobey Maguire) and Jennifer (Reese Witherspoon) get zapped back into a black and white fifties sitcom, Pleasantville. The more they rock Pleasantville's pleasant existence, the more colourful everything becomes.
Amazing. Truly, this is an ingenious comedy with some great comments about the civil rights movement in America in the 1960s, as well as some shades of Nazi Germany. Watching as everything goes from black to white, the juxtaposition of the greys with the colours is so beautiful. Also, the reasons why people turn into colour and when are both poignant and fun.
It's also a well put together ensemble cast featuring Joan Allen, William H. Macy, J.T. Walsh, Paul Walker, and Jeff Daniels. So beautifully done. Props to Gary Ross, the writer/director. Steven Soderbergh was one of the producers, and there are a few hints of his unique directing style in here.
Alright, I feel like keeping this one brief. It's funny and smart, a combo you don't always get in movies today. So enjoy it.
Summary: Two nineties teens, David (Tobey Maguire) and Jennifer (Reese Witherspoon) get zapped back into a black and white fifties sitcom, Pleasantville. The more they rock Pleasantville's pleasant existence, the more colourful everything becomes.
Amazing. Truly, this is an ingenious comedy with some great comments about the civil rights movement in America in the 1960s, as well as some shades of Nazi Germany. Watching as everything goes from black to white, the juxtaposition of the greys with the colours is so beautiful. Also, the reasons why people turn into colour and when are both poignant and fun.
It's also a well put together ensemble cast featuring Joan Allen, William H. Macy, J.T. Walsh, Paul Walker, and Jeff Daniels. So beautifully done. Props to Gary Ross, the writer/director. Steven Soderbergh was one of the producers, and there are a few hints of his unique directing style in here.
Alright, I feel like keeping this one brief. It's funny and smart, a combo you don't always get in movies today. So enjoy it.
Wednesday, February 18, 2004
The New Waterford Girl
Premise: Mooney (Liane Balaban) longs to leave her boring Atlantic Canadian life behind her and move to New York or Paris or . . . anywhere, really, to pursue her dream of becoming an artist. Along comes Lou (Tara Spencer-Naim), a tough gal from the Bronx, who just happens to move in next door. Mooney concocts a surefire scheme that will guarantee her release from her ho-hum small town life, and Lou starts hitting everyone. Did I mention that this all takes place in the 1970s?
You need to get up out of your chair right now and go find this film. I'm serious. Get up! Get going!
Are you still here? Well, I guess I should point out that this film isn't for everyone. It's only for people who find Mary Walsh, Mark McKinney, and Andrew McCarthy (yes, he's still alive) funny. If you are Canadian, then you should know just how funny those first two are. However, if your only experience with McCarthy is Pretty in Pink, then you've got some work to do.
It's also directed by Allan Moyle, the same guy who brought you off-kilter comedies like Pump Up the Volume and Empire Records. If you are not off-kilter like he and I are, then, again, this might not be the movie for you.
Basically, I'm beginning to wonder if this movie is for anyone who doesn't share my sense of humour. Wait a tic, of course it is! Here's why: it will still be damn funny to you. You and I just won't be laughing at the same parts. And that's okay. There are laughs in it for both of us. In fact, there may just be laughs in it for everyone. And who doesn't like a good laugh?
Premise: Mooney (Liane Balaban) longs to leave her boring Atlantic Canadian life behind her and move to New York or Paris or . . . anywhere, really, to pursue her dream of becoming an artist. Along comes Lou (Tara Spencer-Naim), a tough gal from the Bronx, who just happens to move in next door. Mooney concocts a surefire scheme that will guarantee her release from her ho-hum small town life, and Lou starts hitting everyone. Did I mention that this all takes place in the 1970s?
You need to get up out of your chair right now and go find this film. I'm serious. Get up! Get going!
Are you still here? Well, I guess I should point out that this film isn't for everyone. It's only for people who find Mary Walsh, Mark McKinney, and Andrew McCarthy (yes, he's still alive) funny. If you are Canadian, then you should know just how funny those first two are. However, if your only experience with McCarthy is Pretty in Pink, then you've got some work to do.
It's also directed by Allan Moyle, the same guy who brought you off-kilter comedies like Pump Up the Volume and Empire Records. If you are not off-kilter like he and I are, then, again, this might not be the movie for you.
Basically, I'm beginning to wonder if this movie is for anyone who doesn't share my sense of humour. Wait a tic, of course it is! Here's why: it will still be damn funny to you. You and I just won't be laughing at the same parts. And that's okay. There are laughs in it for both of us. In fact, there may just be laughs in it for everyone. And who doesn't like a good laugh?
Tuesday, February 17, 2004
Truth or Consequences, N.M.
Premise: Eight months after he is released from jail, Vincent Gallo decides to pull a drug heist and escape to Mexico. Things go wrong with his muscle, Kiefer Sutherland, starts killing everyone. Then, they go even more wrong when he tries to sell the drugs back to the man he stole them from. Eventually, everyone ends up at a little desert cottage just outside of Truth or Consequences, New Mexico.
Just in case this comes up, Truth or Consequences is a real place. Back in 1950, Ralph Edwards, host of the radio show Truth or Consequences, offered national publicity to any city in the U.S. who would adopt the name. Hot Springs, N.M. took the challenge and has been known as Truth or Consequences ever since.
Plus, I like how the title gives this movie its feel. The events are very much wrapped up in the honesty of the characters and the assumptions they make based on that honesty.
This picture is Kiefer Sutherland's feature film directorial debut, and, if you know me, you know I love to see just about anyone's debut. I found it to be slow and sensual. He seems like the kind of man who likes to take his time to get things right. If you aren't used to that or prefer a more jumpy/handheld/indie style that many Hollywood films attempt to copy today, then you probably aren't going to "get" this movie.
As for the performances, Vincent Gallo doesn't really have what it takes to be a leading man. It really is more of an ensemble than a leading man situation, and I believe that is why it is difficult to notice when Gallo is struggling. Kiefer Sutherland's hair trigger cocaine addict blends insanity with intensity well, and his dancing adds some needed comedic relief. Kevin Pollack's character isn't funny at all, and, while he plays it well as he is talented, I am simply not comfortable with him in serious roles. I think it's because I know just how damn funny he is.
Also, Martin Sheen's character does this thing where he puts his finger on his nose and pushes it to the side in one scene. For all of you who get that little inside joke, you will just die.
In the end, it is not the best movie ever, but it is definitely worth a look, if only to see that dance.
Premise: Eight months after he is released from jail, Vincent Gallo decides to pull a drug heist and escape to Mexico. Things go wrong with his muscle, Kiefer Sutherland, starts killing everyone. Then, they go even more wrong when he tries to sell the drugs back to the man he stole them from. Eventually, everyone ends up at a little desert cottage just outside of Truth or Consequences, New Mexico.
Just in case this comes up, Truth or Consequences is a real place. Back in 1950, Ralph Edwards, host of the radio show Truth or Consequences, offered national publicity to any city in the U.S. who would adopt the name. Hot Springs, N.M. took the challenge and has been known as Truth or Consequences ever since.
Plus, I like how the title gives this movie its feel. The events are very much wrapped up in the honesty of the characters and the assumptions they make based on that honesty.
This picture is Kiefer Sutherland's feature film directorial debut, and, if you know me, you know I love to see just about anyone's debut. I found it to be slow and sensual. He seems like the kind of man who likes to take his time to get things right. If you aren't used to that or prefer a more jumpy/handheld/indie style that many Hollywood films attempt to copy today, then you probably aren't going to "get" this movie.
As for the performances, Vincent Gallo doesn't really have what it takes to be a leading man. It really is more of an ensemble than a leading man situation, and I believe that is why it is difficult to notice when Gallo is struggling. Kiefer Sutherland's hair trigger cocaine addict blends insanity with intensity well, and his dancing adds some needed comedic relief. Kevin Pollack's character isn't funny at all, and, while he plays it well as he is talented, I am simply not comfortable with him in serious roles. I think it's because I know just how damn funny he is.
Also, Martin Sheen's character does this thing where he puts his finger on his nose and pushes it to the side in one scene. For all of you who get that little inside joke, you will just die.
In the end, it is not the best movie ever, but it is definitely worth a look, if only to see that dance.
Monday, February 16, 2004
Thirteen
Summary: Evan Rachel Wood plays a 13 year-old who does a lot of stuff that 13 year-olds should never, never do. Holly Hunter plays her disillusioned mother.
Warning! These girls are 13! Thirteen! If you don't want to see 13 year-olds do stuff that 13 year-olds should never, never do, then don't rent this movie because it's a true story. Yes, true. Just thought I would warn you.
Aside from my absolute shock over the plot, this film is bloody brilliant. Catherine Hardwicke, who also co-scripted, explores the taut relationship between mother and daughter when a girl comes of age in this shocking drama. Yes, I know I just used shock twice. That's what it is. Hardwicke uses coloured lenses to help express pathos. Nicely done.
Evan Rachel Wood is a deeply talented actor. Her pale skin is the physical representation of her acting style: she is transparent. She plays everything with simplicity, grace, and beauty. There are many more critically acclaimed actors who would do themselves a service by taking a page from her.
As for Holly Hunter, I just feel so bad for her. I feel so bad because she plays this mother so well that I wish I could help her. Her character struggles so hard to help her daughter, but her daughter just keeps shutting her out. And it's so sad because she is one of the coolest movie moms ever.
In the end, the movie could be more than you can handle. It's difficult to process how such things could possibly happen to someone so young. But they do happen. Sometimes, I think there may not be much we can do about it. Except pray.
Summary: Evan Rachel Wood plays a 13 year-old who does a lot of stuff that 13 year-olds should never, never do. Holly Hunter plays her disillusioned mother.
Warning! These girls are 13! Thirteen! If you don't want to see 13 year-olds do stuff that 13 year-olds should never, never do, then don't rent this movie because it's a true story. Yes, true. Just thought I would warn you.
Aside from my absolute shock over the plot, this film is bloody brilliant. Catherine Hardwicke, who also co-scripted, explores the taut relationship between mother and daughter when a girl comes of age in this shocking drama. Yes, I know I just used shock twice. That's what it is. Hardwicke uses coloured lenses to help express pathos. Nicely done.
Evan Rachel Wood is a deeply talented actor. Her pale skin is the physical representation of her acting style: she is transparent. She plays everything with simplicity, grace, and beauty. There are many more critically acclaimed actors who would do themselves a service by taking a page from her.
As for Holly Hunter, I just feel so bad for her. I feel so bad because she plays this mother so well that I wish I could help her. Her character struggles so hard to help her daughter, but her daughter just keeps shutting her out. And it's so sad because she is one of the coolest movie moms ever.
In the end, the movie could be more than you can handle. It's difficult to process how such things could possibly happen to someone so young. But they do happen. Sometimes, I think there may not be much we can do about it. Except pray.
Sunday, February 15, 2004
Career Opportunities
Precis: A teen (Frank Whaley) is hired as a night watchman/janitor of a store akin to K-Mart. On his first day, he is locked in with a rich girl (Jennifer Connelly), who was considering shoplifting in a dressing room when the store closed. Fun comedy turns to drama when Dermot Mulroney attempts rob the place.
John Hughes rocks! This movie, however, does not. But I have the feeling that none of you have heard of it anyway. You should probably stay that way.
Now, I'm not going to lie to you. I used to watch this movie all the time on cable when I was younger. All the time. But when you are 9 or so, your tastes aren't as discretionary as they are when you are, say, 29. So it goes.
In any case, John Hughes' screenplay reads like something he came up with on a cocktail napkin after a few too many. Honestly, he writes teen in incredible situations tremendously well the rest of the time, but something is lacking in this movie. Sparkle, I think. It needs more sparkle.
Bryan Gordon's textbook direction doesn't really help. If you have seen Whaley, Connelly, and Mulroney in anything else, then you know that all three have talent. This movie simply does not give them the opportunity to showcase it.
If you do choose to rent it or catch it on cable, make sure you watch for John Candy's unbilled cameo: it has sparkle.
Precis: A teen (Frank Whaley) is hired as a night watchman/janitor of a store akin to K-Mart. On his first day, he is locked in with a rich girl (Jennifer Connelly), who was considering shoplifting in a dressing room when the store closed. Fun comedy turns to drama when Dermot Mulroney attempts rob the place.
John Hughes rocks! This movie, however, does not. But I have the feeling that none of you have heard of it anyway. You should probably stay that way.
Now, I'm not going to lie to you. I used to watch this movie all the time on cable when I was younger. All the time. But when you are 9 or so, your tastes aren't as discretionary as they are when you are, say, 29. So it goes.
In any case, John Hughes' screenplay reads like something he came up with on a cocktail napkin after a few too many. Honestly, he writes teen in incredible situations tremendously well the rest of the time, but something is lacking in this movie. Sparkle, I think. It needs more sparkle.
Bryan Gordon's textbook direction doesn't really help. If you have seen Whaley, Connelly, and Mulroney in anything else, then you know that all three have talent. This movie simply does not give them the opportunity to showcase it.
If you do choose to rent it or catch it on cable, make sure you watch for John Candy's unbilled cameo: it has sparkle.
Saturday, February 14, 2004
Some Kind of Wonderful
Plan: Eric Stolz loves the unattainable Amanda Jones (Lea Thompson), and his best friend Mary Stuart Masterson is so clearly in love with him. Also, Stolz is an artist, so everyone at his high school needs to make fun of him for that.
John Hughes continued! To be clear, he only produces and writes this one, but his handiwork is still evident. In this case, it's actually directed by Howard Deutch, who directed Article 99, which I already reviewed.
The love triangle is pretty obvious and now considered trite, but I am not sure it was at the time. Even so, let's pit the redhead against the blonde, the popular against the loser, the rich against the wrong side of the tracks, the girlie girl against the tomboy. Oh, wait, high school really is stupid like that, so I cannot fault Hughes.
Plus, you get some stellar performances. Stolz is as adorable as he is clueless, Thompson manages to rescue her character from becoming just another rich bitch, and Masterson is as plucky as she always is. Honestly, she should make more movies.
Did I mention that Masterson plays some sweet drums in the movie? Drums are always a plus. Overall, an adorable movie.
Plan: Eric Stolz loves the unattainable Amanda Jones (Lea Thompson), and his best friend Mary Stuart Masterson is so clearly in love with him. Also, Stolz is an artist, so everyone at his high school needs to make fun of him for that.
John Hughes continued! To be clear, he only produces and writes this one, but his handiwork is still evident. In this case, it's actually directed by Howard Deutch, who directed Article 99, which I already reviewed.
The love triangle is pretty obvious and now considered trite, but I am not sure it was at the time. Even so, let's pit the redhead against the blonde, the popular against the loser, the rich against the wrong side of the tracks, the girlie girl against the tomboy. Oh, wait, high school really is stupid like that, so I cannot fault Hughes.
Plus, you get some stellar performances. Stolz is as adorable as he is clueless, Thompson manages to rescue her character from becoming just another rich bitch, and Masterson is as plucky as she always is. Honestly, she should make more movies.
Did I mention that Masterson plays some sweet drums in the movie? Drums are always a plus. Overall, an adorable movie.
Friday, February 13, 2004
The Breakfast Club
Plot: Five vastly different high school students spend Saturday detention together. Once again, not like detention ever was for you.
Second day of my John Hughes overture! Once again, Hughes' puts together the perfect 80s cast: Molly Ringwald, Judd Nelson, Anthony Michael Hall, Ally Sheedy, and Emilio Estevez (?). I swear, this man does teen angst in a way that I cannot even use words.
Hughes' seamless writing and direction lends credibility to the unbelievable adventures the gang undertakes. Their run-ins with the (vice?) principle are somewhat abusive, but Hughes balances it will. Ah, balance. It is definitely one of the keys to creating a movie with lasting appeal. Unless it's an epic. Epics have an entirely different set of rules.
Don't be surprised if you find some of it lacking in what you would look for in a movie today. That's not what it's about when you watch an 80s teen movie. I tell you truly, 80s teen movies are there own genre. When you consider their stars (e.g. the effervescent Molly Ringwald, the charming Patrick Dempsey), you'll understand why.
In short, a nice mix of comedy and odd-drama peppers this classic 80s fare. Bon appetit!
Plot: Five vastly different high school students spend Saturday detention together. Once again, not like detention ever was for you.
Second day of my John Hughes overture! Once again, Hughes' puts together the perfect 80s cast: Molly Ringwald, Judd Nelson, Anthony Michael Hall, Ally Sheedy, and Emilio Estevez (?). I swear, this man does teen angst in a way that I cannot even use words.
Hughes' seamless writing and direction lends credibility to the unbelievable adventures the gang undertakes. Their run-ins with the (vice?) principle are somewhat abusive, but Hughes balances it will. Ah, balance. It is definitely one of the keys to creating a movie with lasting appeal. Unless it's an epic. Epics have an entirely different set of rules.
Don't be surprised if you find some of it lacking in what you would look for in a movie today. That's not what it's about when you watch an 80s teen movie. I tell you truly, 80s teen movies are there own genre. When you consider their stars (e.g. the effervescent Molly Ringwald, the charming Patrick Dempsey), you'll understand why.
In short, a nice mix of comedy and odd-drama peppers this classic 80s fare. Bon appetit!
Thursday, February 12, 2004
Ferris Buller's Day Off
Basic Premise: I cannot believe you don't know the plot. Ferris, his best friend Cameron, and his girlfriend Skye take the day off school and have unbelievable adventures.
Welcome to April's overture of love for John Hughes. John Hughes is the classic eighties teen angst movie director. In fact, he tends to write them, too. And I salute him.
Hughes' unique narrative reflects the film's far-fetched plot. But I think that's the point. Events like these never happen when you skipped school, but, the more you get to know Ferris, the more reasonable it seems that they should happen to him. He is one of those guys who is insanely popular in the way that everyone knows him, and everyone likes him. A rare combo indeed.
And Matthew Broderick plays it off with an easy charm. It's all in a sly smile and a flick of the wrist, so to speak. The supporting cast is well chosen, and their remarks show a gift for comedic timing. All in all, a sparkling, very 80s comedy. Salut!
Basic Premise: I cannot believe you don't know the plot. Ferris, his best friend Cameron, and his girlfriend Skye take the day off school and have unbelievable adventures.
Welcome to April's overture of love for John Hughes. John Hughes is the classic eighties teen angst movie director. In fact, he tends to write them, too. And I salute him.
Hughes' unique narrative reflects the film's far-fetched plot. But I think that's the point. Events like these never happen when you skipped school, but, the more you get to know Ferris, the more reasonable it seems that they should happen to him. He is one of those guys who is insanely popular in the way that everyone knows him, and everyone likes him. A rare combo indeed.
And Matthew Broderick plays it off with an easy charm. It's all in a sly smile and a flick of the wrist, so to speak. The supporting cast is well chosen, and their remarks show a gift for comedic timing. All in all, a sparkling, very 80s comedy. Salut!
Wednesday, February 11, 2004
This hour has 22 minutes, Made in Canada, Train 48, Corner Gas
Don't freak out, that isn't the name of one crazy movie. I decided to make an exception today to talk about something I feel is tremendously over-looked: Canadian television.
I know, everyone thinks that Canadian TV sucks, but they are wrong. Most people who have a misconception about it have never seen it. In fact, I doubt many of you have seen anything outside of Mr. Dress-up. And you are definitely missing out.
So let me give you a basic plot description of each of the aforementioned shows.
This hour has 22 minutes: satirical recap of the news event of one week. Airs Friday nights on CBC and re-runs daily on Showcase at 6 p.m.
Made in Canada: chronicling the producers of "Beaver Creek" (read: Anne of Green Gables). Just finished its five year run, re-runs on Showcase at 6:30.
Train 48: follows the lives of ten commuters to and from Toronto on the GO train. Airs on Global at 11:30 a.m. and 7 p.m. May be on later at night as well.
Corner Gas: Revolves around a gas station and coffee shop in small-town Saskatchewan. CTV, usually Thursdays at eight, but tonight (Wednesday) at eight as well.
Alright, those four shows are the funniest I have ever, ever seen. Yes, it is true that I am prone to laughter when no one else is, but they are still hilarious. Check them out. In fact, if you can, do it right now.
Don't freak out, that isn't the name of one crazy movie. I decided to make an exception today to talk about something I feel is tremendously over-looked: Canadian television.
I know, everyone thinks that Canadian TV sucks, but they are wrong. Most people who have a misconception about it have never seen it. In fact, I doubt many of you have seen anything outside of Mr. Dress-up. And you are definitely missing out.
So let me give you a basic plot description of each of the aforementioned shows.
This hour has 22 minutes: satirical recap of the news event of one week. Airs Friday nights on CBC and re-runs daily on Showcase at 6 p.m.
Made in Canada: chronicling the producers of "Beaver Creek" (read: Anne of Green Gables). Just finished its five year run, re-runs on Showcase at 6:30.
Train 48: follows the lives of ten commuters to and from Toronto on the GO train. Airs on Global at 11:30 a.m. and 7 p.m. May be on later at night as well.
Corner Gas: Revolves around a gas station and coffee shop in small-town Saskatchewan. CTV, usually Thursdays at eight, but tonight (Wednesday) at eight as well.
Alright, those four shows are the funniest I have ever, ever seen. Yes, it is true that I am prone to laughter when no one else is, but they are still hilarious. Check them out. In fact, if you can, do it right now.
Tuesday, February 10, 2004
First Knight
In brief: Sean Connery is King Arthur, Julia Ormond is Queen Guinevere, and Richard Gere is Sir Lancelot. Guinevere gets herself into lots of trouble, Lancelot rescues her lots, and Arthur gets nagged lots by the other knights of the round table. Oh, and he says, "Welcome to Camelot."
Serious, though, the movie is pretty good. Connery's performance suggests that Arthur's flaw was uxoriousness, and Gere's interpretation of Lancelot very clearly demonstrates obsessive love as part of the chivalric code. Julia Ormond doesn't do anything special.
The fact that the Arthurian legend survives despite the fact that there is no written mention of it until about 600 years after it was supposed to happen is enough to explain its importance.
Actually, the more I think about it, the more this movies seems key to understanding the chivalric code and gaining some basic knowledge of the Welsh myth. I know, you are wondering why you need to know Welsh mythology. Why? It's just one of those things that everyone is supposed to know. Like, Romeo and Juliet. Is there honestly a person who goes through school that doesn't know the story of Romeo and Juliet? That's just messed up if you don't.
In brief: Sean Connery is King Arthur, Julia Ormond is Queen Guinevere, and Richard Gere is Sir Lancelot. Guinevere gets herself into lots of trouble, Lancelot rescues her lots, and Arthur gets nagged lots by the other knights of the round table. Oh, and he says, "Welcome to Camelot."
Serious, though, the movie is pretty good. Connery's performance suggests that Arthur's flaw was uxoriousness, and Gere's interpretation of Lancelot very clearly demonstrates obsessive love as part of the chivalric code. Julia Ormond doesn't do anything special.
The fact that the Arthurian legend survives despite the fact that there is no written mention of it until about 600 years after it was supposed to happen is enough to explain its importance.
Actually, the more I think about it, the more this movies seems key to understanding the chivalric code and gaining some basic knowledge of the Welsh myth. I know, you are wondering why you need to know Welsh mythology. Why? It's just one of those things that everyone is supposed to know. Like, Romeo and Juliet. Is there honestly a person who goes through school that doesn't know the story of Romeo and Juliet? That's just messed up if you don't.
Monday, February 09, 2004
Election
In short: Matthew Broderick is a teacher at a high school where some students take the school elections very, very seriously. So I guess it's like any other school in that sense. Until you see what they will do to win and what makes them get involved in the first place.
Macabre. Macabre is the best word to describe this kind of film. Well, within reason. It's a film noir without a doubt, but a film noir with the blackest sense of humor. After all, it is a comedy.
Matthew Broderick and Reese Witherspoon's obsessive characters are too darkly humorous for me to use any other superlatives. They attack their characters with relish and positively chew up the scenery. It's beautiful. Plus, the idea of a teacher trying to take down an over-achiever sparkles.
Also, the film provides a reminder that every vote counts, which is why I'd like to remind all U of O students who read this post that elections are happening this week. Check out the platforms on SFUO's website, then log on to www.vote.sfuo.ca and vote. I'm so serious.
In short: Matthew Broderick is a teacher at a high school where some students take the school elections very, very seriously. So I guess it's like any other school in that sense. Until you see what they will do to win and what makes them get involved in the first place.
Macabre. Macabre is the best word to describe this kind of film. Well, within reason. It's a film noir without a doubt, but a film noir with the blackest sense of humor. After all, it is a comedy.
Matthew Broderick and Reese Witherspoon's obsessive characters are too darkly humorous for me to use any other superlatives. They attack their characters with relish and positively chew up the scenery. It's beautiful. Plus, the idea of a teacher trying to take down an over-achiever sparkles.
Also, the film provides a reminder that every vote counts, which is why I'd like to remind all U of O students who read this post that elections are happening this week. Check out the platforms on SFUO's website, then log on to www.vote.sfuo.ca and vote. I'm so serious.
Sunday, February 08, 2004
The Lost Boys
Premise: Jason Patric, Corey Haim, and Diane Weist move to Santa Carla, CA, the murder capital of the world. They soon discover that the high murder rate is largely due to the city's vampire gang, led by Kiefer Sutherland. Patric is turned into a half vampire, and he and his family must locate and eliminate the head vampire in order to reverse the process.
Oh my, oh my. This movie is so very bad. It's definitely got the cult classic elements in it, but it's still so bad. One character does her best Esmeralda impression (I swear it's the exact costume Victor Hugo described), and Jason Patric cannot, at all, act. He simply cannot. For some reason, the director/screenwriter assumed that this meant that they should have a completely gratuitous sex scene smack dab in the middle of the movie.
Corey Haim, however, best known for portraying Lucas in the 80's classical of the same name, provides much need comic relief. Serious, he has all the best lines. As for Kiefer Sutherland, he makes a fairly good vampire. Vampires/vampire mythology is a highly sexualized metaphor for rape/violence in combination with sex, and Sutherland does his best to bring a much needed sexuality to this movie.
Nit picky point: He bites some guy on the top of his head. Why? That's just stupid. Go for the major arteries! That's where the good stuff is.
Overall, you aren't going to be able to handle this movie if you cannot recognize how bad it is. That is why, of course, it is so good.
Premise: Jason Patric, Corey Haim, and Diane Weist move to Santa Carla, CA, the murder capital of the world. They soon discover that the high murder rate is largely due to the city's vampire gang, led by Kiefer Sutherland. Patric is turned into a half vampire, and he and his family must locate and eliminate the head vampire in order to reverse the process.
Oh my, oh my. This movie is so very bad. It's definitely got the cult classic elements in it, but it's still so bad. One character does her best Esmeralda impression (I swear it's the exact costume Victor Hugo described), and Jason Patric cannot, at all, act. He simply cannot. For some reason, the director/screenwriter assumed that this meant that they should have a completely gratuitous sex scene smack dab in the middle of the movie.
Corey Haim, however, best known for portraying Lucas in the 80's classical of the same name, provides much need comic relief. Serious, he has all the best lines. As for Kiefer Sutherland, he makes a fairly good vampire. Vampires/vampire mythology is a highly sexualized metaphor for rape/violence in combination with sex, and Sutherland does his best to bring a much needed sexuality to this movie.
Nit picky point: He bites some guy on the top of his head. Why? That's just stupid. Go for the major arteries! That's where the good stuff is.
Overall, you aren't going to be able to handle this movie if you cannot recognize how bad it is. That is why, of course, it is so good.
Saturday, February 07, 2004
Article 99
Plot: Kiefer Sutherland is the new doc at a veteran's hospital, where the administration is in bed with the HMO's. Ray Liotta leads a team of renegade surgeons who perform necessary procedures, regardless of insurance costs. Although initially resistant, Sutherland eventually joins Liotta.
Alright, so that's really only the first fifteen or twenty minutes of the movie, but I feel it is enough for you to understand. I know that the premise of HMO's screwing hospitals/patients isn't entirely an original one, but Howard Deutch's interpretation is a heartfelt one, if a slightly disappointing one.
Sutherland and Liotta give impressive performances despite the one-dimensional roles. It's also a great opportunity to check out some of the earlier work of great actors like Lea Thompson, John Mahoney, and Forest Whitaker.
This film is one that does not require excessive brain power or emotional involvement, thus making it perfect for a snowy Saturday afternoon.
Plot: Kiefer Sutherland is the new doc at a veteran's hospital, where the administration is in bed with the HMO's. Ray Liotta leads a team of renegade surgeons who perform necessary procedures, regardless of insurance costs. Although initially resistant, Sutherland eventually joins Liotta.
Alright, so that's really only the first fifteen or twenty minutes of the movie, but I feel it is enough for you to understand. I know that the premise of HMO's screwing hospitals/patients isn't entirely an original one, but Howard Deutch's interpretation is a heartfelt one, if a slightly disappointing one.
Sutherland and Liotta give impressive performances despite the one-dimensional roles. It's also a great opportunity to check out some of the earlier work of great actors like Lea Thompson, John Mahoney, and Forest Whitaker.
This film is one that does not require excessive brain power or emotional involvement, thus making it perfect for a snowy Saturday afternoon.
Friday, February 06, 2004
Bowling for Columbine
Basic Plot Summary: To be quite honest, I'm not sure if a documentary can have a basic plot summary. It's about gun culture in America.
To those of you out there who have yet to see it: why not!! It's the top grossing documentary of all time and an Oscar winner for a reason. Besides, we Canadians love to make fun of Americans, do we not? So does Michael Moore, and he's not even one of us. How great is that?!
Consider your self forewarned: honesty is painful at times. Michael Moore is the more radical film equivalent of Noam Chomsky (if you can be more radical than Noam), and he is not above biting satire. In fact, biting satire is his modus operandi. He is at times as snarky as he is hilarious. Plus, he plugs my hometown and his own, and I've got a soft spot for loyalty.
In sooth, I do not believe I need to convince anyone to see this film. I also do not believe in providing you with an unbiased criticism of it. It is brilliant and epic. Yes, I went there. Epic, I say, epic!
Serious, why are you still sitting there? Go out and rent it immediately. Invite everyone you know to watch it with you. It will spark conversation for here to Kingdom. And who doesn't need some good conversation?
Basic Plot Summary: To be quite honest, I'm not sure if a documentary can have a basic plot summary. It's about gun culture in America.
To those of you out there who have yet to see it: why not!! It's the top grossing documentary of all time and an Oscar winner for a reason. Besides, we Canadians love to make fun of Americans, do we not? So does Michael Moore, and he's not even one of us. How great is that?!
Consider your self forewarned: honesty is painful at times. Michael Moore is the more radical film equivalent of Noam Chomsky (if you can be more radical than Noam), and he is not above biting satire. In fact, biting satire is his modus operandi. He is at times as snarky as he is hilarious. Plus, he plugs my hometown and his own, and I've got a soft spot for loyalty.
In sooth, I do not believe I need to convince anyone to see this film. I also do not believe in providing you with an unbiased criticism of it. It is brilliant and epic. Yes, I went there. Epic, I say, epic!
Serious, why are you still sitting there? Go out and rent it immediately. Invite everyone you know to watch it with you. It will spark conversation for here to Kingdom. And who doesn't need some good conversation?
Thursday, February 05, 2004
Coyote Ugly
I feel it's about time for an introduction. Welcome to the movie-fanatic concept of the "guilty pleasure". Now, a guilty pleasure is not a movie you watch obsessively, it is not a movie you think about when you should really be concentrating on something else, it is not a movie that would make your mom and dad disappointed in you to know you watched it. Okay, maybe that last one is true. In any case, it is a movie that isn't good, but you watch it anyway. In fact, you even like to watch it. Because you are a sick, sick freak.
One of my guilty pleasures is Coyote Ugly. It is a bad, bad movie. Jerry Bruckenheimer (?) set out to hire someone who can sing and dance. Instead, he hired Piper Perabo, who can do neither. In reality, she cannot even act. But, somehow, she is the star. Hmm . . .
I cannot even tell you why I like it. I think it must be all that dancing. Seems like a grand ol' time. For serious, though, if you want a movie with good acting/script/direction, then this is not the movie for you. The plot is predictable and boringly done, and the direction is uninspired. Who cares! I don't think it's meant to be taken seriously anyway.
Honestly, would you take a bunch of quasi-strippers seriously? I didn't think so.
I feel it's about time for an introduction. Welcome to the movie-fanatic concept of the "guilty pleasure". Now, a guilty pleasure is not a movie you watch obsessively, it is not a movie you think about when you should really be concentrating on something else, it is not a movie that would make your mom and dad disappointed in you to know you watched it. Okay, maybe that last one is true. In any case, it is a movie that isn't good, but you watch it anyway. In fact, you even like to watch it. Because you are a sick, sick freak.
One of my guilty pleasures is Coyote Ugly. It is a bad, bad movie. Jerry Bruckenheimer (?) set out to hire someone who can sing and dance. Instead, he hired Piper Perabo, who can do neither. In reality, she cannot even act. But, somehow, she is the star. Hmm . . .
I cannot even tell you why I like it. I think it must be all that dancing. Seems like a grand ol' time. For serious, though, if you want a movie with good acting/script/direction, then this is not the movie for you. The plot is predictable and boringly done, and the direction is uninspired. Who cares! I don't think it's meant to be taken seriously anyway.
Honestly, would you take a bunch of quasi-strippers seriously? I didn't think so.
Wednesday, February 04, 2004
Mostly Martha
Whoo-hoo! April's first foreign film review!
Basic plot: Martha is a neurotic, controlling French (style, not citizenship) chef. On their way to visit Martha, her sister and niece are in a fatal car accident. Martha ends up taking care of Lina, her niece, while she searches for Lina's Italian absentee father. To pick up the slack, Martha's boss hires Mario, a relaxed, sensual Italian (style and citizenship) chef. Sparks fly in all sort of directions and in more ways than one.
So, so hilarious. Whoever that German director is, he does an excellent job of balancing the sorrow of grief with adult (read: grown-up, not porno) romance. Martha's inability to relate to anyone except through food is as amusing as it is pathetic. Her scenes with her therapist are comedic gems, and there is one highly sexy scene with Martha, Mario, and some soup/sauce (I'm not sure which).
As a clarification, let me remind you that I'm not suggesting that this film is for everyone. Some people, for example, cannot deal with sub-titles. Others, for whatever misguided reasons, cannot deal with anything outside of the Hollywood mainstream. However, if you do not fall into either of the above categories, than this is definitely the film for you. It's nice to know that a film can be funny with resorting to slapstick, sex, gross-out humor or sad with being dark. Go Germans!
Whoo-hoo! April's first foreign film review!
Basic plot: Martha is a neurotic, controlling French (style, not citizenship) chef. On their way to visit Martha, her sister and niece are in a fatal car accident. Martha ends up taking care of Lina, her niece, while she searches for Lina's Italian absentee father. To pick up the slack, Martha's boss hires Mario, a relaxed, sensual Italian (style and citizenship) chef. Sparks fly in all sort of directions and in more ways than one.
So, so hilarious. Whoever that German director is, he does an excellent job of balancing the sorrow of grief with adult (read: grown-up, not porno) romance. Martha's inability to relate to anyone except through food is as amusing as it is pathetic. Her scenes with her therapist are comedic gems, and there is one highly sexy scene with Martha, Mario, and some soup/sauce (I'm not sure which).
As a clarification, let me remind you that I'm not suggesting that this film is for everyone. Some people, for example, cannot deal with sub-titles. Others, for whatever misguided reasons, cannot deal with anything outside of the Hollywood mainstream. However, if you do not fall into either of the above categories, than this is definitely the film for you. It's nice to know that a film can be funny with resorting to slapstick, sex, gross-out humor or sad with being dark. Go Germans!
Mostly Martha
Whoo-hoo! April's first foriegn film review!
Basic plot: Martha is a neurotic, controlling French (style, not citizenship) chef. On their way to visit her, her sister and niece are in a fatal car accident. Martha ends up taking care of Lina, her niece, while she searches for Lina's Italian absentee father. To pick up the slack, Martha's boss hires Mario, a relaxed, sensual Italian (style and citizenship) chef. Sparks fly in all sort of directions and in more ways than one.
So, so hilarious. Whoever that German director is, he does an excellent job of balancing the sorrow of grief with adult (read: grown-up, not porno) romance. Martha's inability to relate to anyone except through food is as amusing as it is pathetic. Her scenes with her therapist are comedic gems, and there is one highly sexy scene with Martha, Mario, and some soup/sauce (I'm not sure which).
As a clarification, let me remind you that I'm not suggesting that this film is for everyone. Some people, for example, cannot deal with sub-titles. Others, for whatever misguided reasons, cannot deal with anything outside of the Hollywood mainstream. However, if you do not fall into either of the above categories, than this is definetly the film for you. It's nice to know that a film can be funny with resorting to slapstick, sex, gross-out humour or sad with being dark. Go Germans!
Whoo-hoo! April's first foriegn film review!
Basic plot: Martha is a neurotic, controlling French (style, not citizenship) chef. On their way to visit her, her sister and niece are in a fatal car accident. Martha ends up taking care of Lina, her niece, while she searches for Lina's Italian absentee father. To pick up the slack, Martha's boss hires Mario, a relaxed, sensual Italian (style and citizenship) chef. Sparks fly in all sort of directions and in more ways than one.
So, so hilarious. Whoever that German director is, he does an excellent job of balancing the sorrow of grief with adult (read: grown-up, not porno) romance. Martha's inability to relate to anyone except through food is as amusing as it is pathetic. Her scenes with her therapist are comedic gems, and there is one highly sexy scene with Martha, Mario, and some soup/sauce (I'm not sure which).
As a clarification, let me remind you that I'm not suggesting that this film is for everyone. Some people, for example, cannot deal with sub-titles. Others, for whatever misguided reasons, cannot deal with anything outside of the Hollywood mainstream. However, if you do not fall into either of the above categories, than this is definetly the film for you. It's nice to know that a film can be funny with resorting to slapstick, sex, gross-out humour or sad with being dark. Go Germans!
Tuesday, February 03, 2004
A Few Good Men
Plot: Tom Cruise is assigned to represent two Marines held on charges of murder, conduct unbecoming an officer, and other such things that would be included in a charge of murder. Kevin Pollack is assigned to assist him, and Demi Moore fights for her right to represent the two men as well. They attempt to prove that the officers in question were ordered to give Sanitago, the dead Marine, a "code red" (an act of discipline through humiliation), and that his death was an accident. Cruise, Pollack, and Moore go up against Jack Nicholson, Kevin Bacon, and Kiefer Sutherland.
Yes, this movie has been largely parodied. Honestly, though, in this case, imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. I hold this opinion because I know that Aaron Sorkin rocks. He is one of the best screenwriters out there, and I don't think anyone could convince me otherwise. He creates characters that are realistic, smart, and funny in a taut, intricate drama.
Two) this film is a star-studded extravaganza! Did I mention that Noah Wyle and Xander Berkley are in it, too?
As for Rob Reiner's direction, I know he has had accolades heaped upon him for many a film, but he just doesn't do it for me this time. Think about it, it's a movie about a murder and a conspiracy. Sounds gritty, right? Not with his cinematography! It's too . . . pretty. Everything is picture perfect. It's the kind of direction that worked well for other films of his like When Harry met Sally . . . and The American President. When it comes to romantic comedies, you want sunsets and flowers and vistas. But a murder drama? There's this scene were the camera does a close-up on Cruise, pushes past him to Moore, then to Pollack. And it's all so very, very nice. That's just not right in this case.
Regardless, Aaron Sorkin's script is worth the rental fee. Anything he writes is worth the rental fee.
Plot: Tom Cruise is assigned to represent two Marines held on charges of murder, conduct unbecoming an officer, and other such things that would be included in a charge of murder. Kevin Pollack is assigned to assist him, and Demi Moore fights for her right to represent the two men as well. They attempt to prove that the officers in question were ordered to give Sanitago, the dead Marine, a "code red" (an act of discipline through humiliation), and that his death was an accident. Cruise, Pollack, and Moore go up against Jack Nicholson, Kevin Bacon, and Kiefer Sutherland.
Yes, this movie has been largely parodied. Honestly, though, in this case, imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. I hold this opinion because I know that Aaron Sorkin rocks. He is one of the best screenwriters out there, and I don't think anyone could convince me otherwise. He creates characters that are realistic, smart, and funny in a taut, intricate drama.
Two) this film is a star-studded extravaganza! Did I mention that Noah Wyle and Xander Berkley are in it, too?
As for Rob Reiner's direction, I know he has had accolades heaped upon him for many a film, but he just doesn't do it for me this time. Think about it, it's a movie about a murder and a conspiracy. Sounds gritty, right? Not with his cinematography! It's too . . . pretty. Everything is picture perfect. It's the kind of direction that worked well for other films of his like When Harry met Sally . . . and The American President. When it comes to romantic comedies, you want sunsets and flowers and vistas. But a murder drama? There's this scene were the camera does a close-up on Cruise, pushes past him to Moore, then to Pollack. And it's all so very, very nice. That's just not right in this case.
Regardless, Aaron Sorkin's script is worth the rental fee. Anything he writes is worth the rental fee.
Monday, February 02, 2004
Personal Velocity: Three Stories
First Premise: Delia (Kelly Preston) takes her children and leaves her abusive husband.
Second Premise: Parker Posey gets a great promotion.
Third Premise: A girl picks up a hitchhiker.
Alright, I know that those plot descriptions were rather vague, but I didn't want to spoil this amazing movie. I wrote the descriptions out separately because the movie is divided into three parts. They are not intertwined but clearly indicated by titles.
The film is a combination of live action and stop photography that goes forwards and backwards in time. Each tale is told with precision and patience. I'm not saying that the movie moves progresses slowly; I'm saying that the director, who I believe is also the narrator, allows a certain grace in his storytelling that can only come with time.
Kelly Preston's highly sexual Delia is fantastic portrait of the way a woman can manipulate a man through actions alone. Parker Posey brings new insight to a cold-hearted wench. As for the other girl, I cannot recall the name of the actress or the character, but her story is worth watching if only for the pure strangeness of it.
As for the title, each story is about the woman in question coming to terms with who she is and what she brings to the table. In each case, the women have to lose what has held them down and, perhaps, even fall into old patterns in order to grow.
The film is powerful but also sexual explicit in some parts. Also, Delia takes a pretty bad beating in the beginning. On the other hand, that's only the beginning, and it is integral to the story line. If you can get past it, the movie is by far worth your time.
One more small note, this movie was either a limited release or an independent film, so you may have difficulty finding it. I suggest including your local library in your search. Libraries have tons of great movies, new and old, which they will happily give you for a standard week for FREE. And then you can join the three percent of us who have library cards.
First Premise: Delia (Kelly Preston) takes her children and leaves her abusive husband.
Second Premise: Parker Posey gets a great promotion.
Third Premise: A girl picks up a hitchhiker.
Alright, I know that those plot descriptions were rather vague, but I didn't want to spoil this amazing movie. I wrote the descriptions out separately because the movie is divided into three parts. They are not intertwined but clearly indicated by titles.
The film is a combination of live action and stop photography that goes forwards and backwards in time. Each tale is told with precision and patience. I'm not saying that the movie moves progresses slowly; I'm saying that the director, who I believe is also the narrator, allows a certain grace in his storytelling that can only come with time.
Kelly Preston's highly sexual Delia is fantastic portrait of the way a woman can manipulate a man through actions alone. Parker Posey brings new insight to a cold-hearted wench. As for the other girl, I cannot recall the name of the actress or the character, but her story is worth watching if only for the pure strangeness of it.
As for the title, each story is about the woman in question coming to terms with who she is and what she brings to the table. In each case, the women have to lose what has held them down and, perhaps, even fall into old patterns in order to grow.
The film is powerful but also sexual explicit in some parts. Also, Delia takes a pretty bad beating in the beginning. On the other hand, that's only the beginning, and it is integral to the story line. If you can get past it, the movie is by far worth your time.
One more small note, this movie was either a limited release or an independent film, so you may have difficulty finding it. I suggest including your local library in your search. Libraries have tons of great movies, new and old, which they will happily give you for a standard week for FREE. And then you can join the three percent of us who have library cards.
Sunday, February 01, 2004
Disclosure
Premise: Michael Douglas thinks he's getting a promotion, but Donald Sutherland brings in Demi Moore to take the position instead. She sexually harasses Douglas, an ex-lover, then accuses him of sexual harassment. Douglas beings to uncover a plot to force him out of the business.
Warning! My critique will include a spoiler today, so I advise you to avoid it if it will upset you to know what happens in the movie.
Reading the premise, you'd think this movie sound pretty promising. You've got Douglas, Sutherland, and Moore, all seasoned professionals with time-tested box office appeal. And then you are all, a man accusing a woman of sexual harassment? Sweet rubies, could this be any more exciting?
Yes, yes it could. Because this movie falls flat on its face. Sure, there are some fun little twists in there; I won't deny it. Nonetheless, the movie is bizarrely boring. In the scenes where Douglas and Moore present their sides of the story to a mediator, both lie. I mean, Moore's character makes up a convoluted story, but Douglas lies, too! What? Why would he bother doing that? To express that he is in some way culpable? Forget that!
I know you could argue that we live in a world full of shades of grey. Things aren't always black and white, you might say. So?! is my reply. When is comes to sexual harassment, sexual assault, and rape, things are very black and white. I realize that some may have a different interpretation of events (i.e. violator v. victim), but the fact remains that we have little recourse but to trust the victim.
Overall, Disclosure is a disappointment. The best part in it occurs when another woman gets promoted after Moore is fired. She, unlike Moore or Douglas, is promoted on the merit of her achievements and her seniority. Good for her. If only we could say the same thing was consistently true in the workplace today.
Premise: Michael Douglas thinks he's getting a promotion, but Donald Sutherland brings in Demi Moore to take the position instead. She sexually harasses Douglas, an ex-lover, then accuses him of sexual harassment. Douglas beings to uncover a plot to force him out of the business.
Warning! My critique will include a spoiler today, so I advise you to avoid it if it will upset you to know what happens in the movie.
Reading the premise, you'd think this movie sound pretty promising. You've got Douglas, Sutherland, and Moore, all seasoned professionals with time-tested box office appeal. And then you are all, a man accusing a woman of sexual harassment? Sweet rubies, could this be any more exciting?
Yes, yes it could. Because this movie falls flat on its face. Sure, there are some fun little twists in there; I won't deny it. Nonetheless, the movie is bizarrely boring. In the scenes where Douglas and Moore present their sides of the story to a mediator, both lie. I mean, Moore's character makes up a convoluted story, but Douglas lies, too! What? Why would he bother doing that? To express that he is in some way culpable? Forget that!
I know you could argue that we live in a world full of shades of grey. Things aren't always black and white, you might say. So?! is my reply. When is comes to sexual harassment, sexual assault, and rape, things are very black and white. I realize that some may have a different interpretation of events (i.e. violator v. victim), but the fact remains that we have little recourse but to trust the victim.
Overall, Disclosure is a disappointment. The best part in it occurs when another woman gets promoted after Moore is fired. She, unlike Moore or Douglas, is promoted on the merit of her achievements and her seniority. Good for her. If only we could say the same thing was consistently true in the workplace today.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)