Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil (1997)
Plan: John Kelso (John Cusack) is hired by Town and Country to cover the Christmas party of Savannah socialite Jim Williams (Kevin Spacey) and sticks around for Williams' trial when he is accused of murder in the first a few hours later. Or, as Kelso says, "This place is like Gone with the Wind on mescaline (?)!"
This is the film that caused me to exclaim "Clint Eastwood should direct everything!". Eastwood should, in fact, not direct everything. That would be bad. But he should direct this movie because he did a brilliant job. Honestly, he has a great sense of humour, balance, and beauty. His ability to pace himself, however, is called into question by the 155 minutes the DVD bills him with. Maybe a little too long. I like long movies, though, but I know they are certainly not for everyone.
He definitely keeps up with John Lee Hancock's slick script based on John Berendt's international best seller. Don't ask me how the movie fares as an adaptation of the book, though, as I have never read the book. As a movie, it's grand (literally and figuratively).
I should take this time to discuss how Spacey and Cusack (two of my fav leading men) rise to the occasion in this murder mystery, but they aren't who really caught my eye. That prize belongs to the Lady Chablis, who plays herself. She is stunning and scathing. Snaps for the Lady.
One itty bitty nit picky point: I swear, in this movie, Savannah, Georgia is doing its best impresonation of New Orleans. Every time I see it, I forget it's not in New Orleans. Why is that?
Wednesday, March 31, 2004
Tuesday, March 30, 2004
Flatliners (1990)
Short: A group of medical students get this great idea to flatline to see if there is life after death.
Ha! Ha! Ha! The first line is this movie is "Today is good day to die", and, frankly, if you have to see this film, you would be right. It's an awful movie littered with crass stereotypes. There's the beautiful but difficult female doctor (Julia Roberts), the nervous bookworm (Oliver Platt), the brilliant and talented young man who can't stand the establishment (Kevin Bacon), the guy who's got lots of money and even more attitude (Kiefer Sutherland), and a lothario (William Baldwin) for good measure.
Actually, that sounds like a pretty impressive cast on paper. However, on the screen, they are ho-hum at best. Don't get me wrong, Joel Schumacher (another director that I think has a thing for Sutherland - but who doesn't?) is pretty good director. I just don't know what he expected to do with Peter Filardi's script. Filardi also brought us The Craft, so I don't consider him a man of ability. Or taste. Or skill, for that matter. Alright, I just don't like his movies. Because they are awful. And they have unnatural close-ups. Those kinds of things can really throw a girl off.
What can I say? Good cast and fairly good director can't save a bad script. In fact, nothing can save a bad script. Not talented actors, not a quality director, not a powerful score, not an impressive soundtrack, not picturesque scenery. None of it means anything if a script isn't there. And everyone's sins coming back to haunt them now that they have died? Boring. Weird, but boring.
So there ya go, I wrote about yet another film I didn't enjoy. Don't see it, unless you like watching bad movies. If you are like me, you actually like to watch such movies, so you can make fun of them while you watch them. It's much more fun that way.
Short: A group of medical students get this great idea to flatline to see if there is life after death.
Ha! Ha! Ha! The first line is this movie is "Today is good day to die", and, frankly, if you have to see this film, you would be right. It's an awful movie littered with crass stereotypes. There's the beautiful but difficult female doctor (Julia Roberts), the nervous bookworm (Oliver Platt), the brilliant and talented young man who can't stand the establishment (Kevin Bacon), the guy who's got lots of money and even more attitude (Kiefer Sutherland), and a lothario (William Baldwin) for good measure.
Actually, that sounds like a pretty impressive cast on paper. However, on the screen, they are ho-hum at best. Don't get me wrong, Joel Schumacher (another director that I think has a thing for Sutherland - but who doesn't?) is pretty good director. I just don't know what he expected to do with Peter Filardi's script. Filardi also brought us The Craft, so I don't consider him a man of ability. Or taste. Or skill, for that matter. Alright, I just don't like his movies. Because they are awful. And they have unnatural close-ups. Those kinds of things can really throw a girl off.
What can I say? Good cast and fairly good director can't save a bad script. In fact, nothing can save a bad script. Not talented actors, not a quality director, not a powerful score, not an impressive soundtrack, not picturesque scenery. None of it means anything if a script isn't there. And everyone's sins coming back to haunt them now that they have died? Boring. Weird, but boring.
So there ya go, I wrote about yet another film I didn't enjoy. Don't see it, unless you like watching bad movies. If you are like me, you actually like to watch such movies, so you can make fun of them while you watch them. It's much more fun that way.
Monday, March 29, 2004
Moonlight Mile (2002)
Plot: Joe (Jake Gyllenhaal) is held hostage by the grieving parents (Susan Sarandon and Dustin Hoffman) of his murdered fiancee.
"Held hostage" in a figurative sense -> that's a little insight from me to you.
Oh, wow. As always, Gyllenhaal impresses and inspires me. I love his character who is too guilty to grieve. The "secret" he was hiding was pretty obvious, but I don't mind. In fact, the whole movie is a lot like grief. It's funny, and sad, and strange, and scattered, and personal. I admire that Gyllenhaal could hold his own against Hoffman and Sarandon, who give stunning performances. I would have, in such a circumstance, peed my pants.
Brad Silberling wrote and directed this film of quiet intensity. I must say, of his previous attempts (Casper and City of Angels) I like this one the best. It's real. Sure, the other plots were about ghosts and angels, but that doesn't mean they couldn't be real. I'm just saying this is more real.
I just realized that this is pretty short today. Meh. Basically, it's good, but it's not so good that I feel compelled to go on and on like I normally do. So there you have it: it's good but not that good.
Plot: Joe (Jake Gyllenhaal) is held hostage by the grieving parents (Susan Sarandon and Dustin Hoffman) of his murdered fiancee.
"Held hostage" in a figurative sense -> that's a little insight from me to you.
Oh, wow. As always, Gyllenhaal impresses and inspires me. I love his character who is too guilty to grieve. The "secret" he was hiding was pretty obvious, but I don't mind. In fact, the whole movie is a lot like grief. It's funny, and sad, and strange, and scattered, and personal. I admire that Gyllenhaal could hold his own against Hoffman and Sarandon, who give stunning performances. I would have, in such a circumstance, peed my pants.
Brad Silberling wrote and directed this film of quiet intensity. I must say, of his previous attempts (Casper and City of Angels) I like this one the best. It's real. Sure, the other plots were about ghosts and angels, but that doesn't mean they couldn't be real. I'm just saying this is more real.
I just realized that this is pretty short today. Meh. Basically, it's good, but it's not so good that I feel compelled to go on and on like I normally do. So there you have it: it's good but not that good.
Sunday, March 28, 2004
Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (2004)
Outline: Upon discovering that his girlfriend, Clementine (Kate Winslet), has had him erased from her memory, Joel (Jim Carrey) decides to have the same procedure done. The film, for the large part, takes place in Joel's memory as the eraser guys work backwards in his mind to remove every trace of Clementine. When Joel realizes what he'll lose, he strives to stop the procedure or hide Clementine where no one will find her.
Charlie Kaufman blows my mind. I love his movies where he completely blurs the line between reality and fantasy (e.g. Being John Malkovich and Confessions of a Dangerous Mind). I think he'd probably tell you something a little off like the only reality is fantasy. And that could be true. At least it's the truth when applied to movies like this. I tell you truly though, his movies can be so fanciful that they give me a headache. I know that sounds like something you wouldn't want to happen, but I kind of like it when a movie is so psychologically thrilling (not to be confused with watching a psychological thriller) that my mind can't keep up.
What I want to know is how he ever met Michel Gondry (director). Okay, so they did Human Nature together, but I still don't know how they could have met. Honestly, the match is near perfect, and it makes the whole experience that much more enjoyable.
Also, smacks to whomever was critical of Carrey in serious roles. I liked him in The Truman Show, I liked him in The Majestic, and I love him in Eternal Sunshine. Plus, the film reminded me why I believed Winslet so talented.
Of course, what really got me was how normal Tom Wilkinson behaved. Usually I find him so frightening, but he was so calm and quiet as the doctor stealing portions of people's lives.
Oh, see it, see it, see it. Everyone should see Kaufman - everyone.
Outline: Upon discovering that his girlfriend, Clementine (Kate Winslet), has had him erased from her memory, Joel (Jim Carrey) decides to have the same procedure done. The film, for the large part, takes place in Joel's memory as the eraser guys work backwards in his mind to remove every trace of Clementine. When Joel realizes what he'll lose, he strives to stop the procedure or hide Clementine where no one will find her.
Charlie Kaufman blows my mind. I love his movies where he completely blurs the line between reality and fantasy (e.g. Being John Malkovich and Confessions of a Dangerous Mind). I think he'd probably tell you something a little off like the only reality is fantasy. And that could be true. At least it's the truth when applied to movies like this. I tell you truly though, his movies can be so fanciful that they give me a headache. I know that sounds like something you wouldn't want to happen, but I kind of like it when a movie is so psychologically thrilling (not to be confused with watching a psychological thriller) that my mind can't keep up.
What I want to know is how he ever met Michel Gondry (director). Okay, so they did Human Nature together, but I still don't know how they could have met. Honestly, the match is near perfect, and it makes the whole experience that much more enjoyable.
Also, smacks to whomever was critical of Carrey in serious roles. I liked him in The Truman Show, I liked him in The Majestic, and I love him in Eternal Sunshine. Plus, the film reminded me why I believed Winslet so talented.
Of course, what really got me was how normal Tom Wilkinson behaved. Usually I find him so frightening, but he was so calm and quiet as the doctor stealing portions of people's lives.
Oh, see it, see it, see it. Everyone should see Kaufman - everyone.
Saturday, March 27, 2004
Reality Bites (1994)
Premise: Following four students after graduation. Okay, that's a little too vague, even for me. Um . . . Troy (Ethan Hawke) loses his job at the news stand, so he moves in with Lelaina (Winona Ryder) and Vicky (Janeane Garofalo). Samy (Steven Zahn) is always around, and Lelaina starts dating Michael (Ben Stiller) after she causes his car to crash into hers.
Wow . . . I am surprised that I haven't written about this movie sooner. I love it, and I watch it all the time. It's so . . . me. Even though this movie came out to lukewarm reviews in 1994, if it had just held off for a few years, it would have done very well. Like Empire Records. Those movies really strike a cord in people my age.
Okay, back to my review. Ben Stiller I love, although I question his directorial choices (e.g The Cable Guy). Nonetheless, this movie isn't very well directed. I mean, Stiller tells the story well, and his character is even better, but I cannot blame him for Helen Childress' script. What was she thinking? Who talks like these people? I don't mean that in the way that people were critical of the dialogue in Dawson's Creek. It's the simple everyday conversation that is lacking in realism in this film. Honestly, people don't talk like this.
Of course, Ryder's acting doesn't help. About a year ago I realized that it wasn't Ryder I liked, it was just that she was in a lot of films that I enjoy. She, in actuality, isn't very good. She overacts simple conversation, and she appears nervous and twittering in any scene that requires more depth or emotion. Hawke is talented, but I'm still mad at him. Thus, that is the only comment he is getting.
The best parts of this film are Garofalo and Zahn. Their characters are far more interesting than Lelaina, the so-called protagonist, and their portrayers are so fab. They are amusing, smart, and a little irreverent.
Consider this idea that I had. Lelaina's documentary isn't particularly good; Troy's band isn't very good. They all seem to be struggling to come to some grand realization after finishing college, like they were going to suddenly figure out what it all meant. And they don't. I think that's the point. Life doesn't come to an apex. There is no one event or time or person that you can pinpoint as the pintessence of your existence. Life is a series of apices that you can never predict. You simply ride them out and pray for more.
Premise: Following four students after graduation. Okay, that's a little too vague, even for me. Um . . . Troy (Ethan Hawke) loses his job at the news stand, so he moves in with Lelaina (Winona Ryder) and Vicky (Janeane Garofalo). Samy (Steven Zahn) is always around, and Lelaina starts dating Michael (Ben Stiller) after she causes his car to crash into hers.
Wow . . . I am surprised that I haven't written about this movie sooner. I love it, and I watch it all the time. It's so . . . me. Even though this movie came out to lukewarm reviews in 1994, if it had just held off for a few years, it would have done very well. Like Empire Records. Those movies really strike a cord in people my age.
Okay, back to my review. Ben Stiller I love, although I question his directorial choices (e.g The Cable Guy). Nonetheless, this movie isn't very well directed. I mean, Stiller tells the story well, and his character is even better, but I cannot blame him for Helen Childress' script. What was she thinking? Who talks like these people? I don't mean that in the way that people were critical of the dialogue in Dawson's Creek. It's the simple everyday conversation that is lacking in realism in this film. Honestly, people don't talk like this.
Of course, Ryder's acting doesn't help. About a year ago I realized that it wasn't Ryder I liked, it was just that she was in a lot of films that I enjoy. She, in actuality, isn't very good. She overacts simple conversation, and she appears nervous and twittering in any scene that requires more depth or emotion. Hawke is talented, but I'm still mad at him. Thus, that is the only comment he is getting.
The best parts of this film are Garofalo and Zahn. Their characters are far more interesting than Lelaina, the so-called protagonist, and their portrayers are so fab. They are amusing, smart, and a little irreverent.
Consider this idea that I had. Lelaina's documentary isn't particularly good; Troy's band isn't very good. They all seem to be struggling to come to some grand realization after finishing college, like they were going to suddenly figure out what it all meant. And they don't. I think that's the point. Life doesn't come to an apex. There is no one event or time or person that you can pinpoint as the pintessence of your existence. Life is a series of apices that you can never predict. You simply ride them out and pray for more.
Friday, March 26, 2004
Frequency (2000)
Idea: When his best friend, Gordo (Noah Emmerich), drags out his father's (Dennis Quaid) old radio equipment, John Sullivan (Jim Caviezel) discovers that he can communicate with his dead father 30 years in the past.
Two things that need immediate mention: 1) Yay for another great movie from the year 2000. I really feel like that year did me proud. 2) Another of April's top five tear-jerkers. However, this does not mean that you will cry. You see, I am particularly susceptible to father/son relationships and when they say "I love you" to each other. I'm pretty sure it has something to do with the fact that you aren't really allowed to do such things in my family.
Of course, as anyone interested in time travel/time interference can tell you, if you change one thing, you change everything. The movie centres around this idea (e.g. tagline: What if?), and it does it really well. I am awed by the bond Caviezel and Quaid build based solely on their voices vs. screen time. It's magical. And it takes talent to get us emotional invested in that kind of relationship.
Mystery/dramas seem to be Gregory Hoblit's (director) bread-and-butter (e.g. Fallen, Hart's War). I was about to say that he knows a thing or two about tension, but I realized that I talk about a director's ability to build tension a lot. Well, it's really important, okay? Or I watch a lot of tense movies. I guess this would be a good time to subscribe to uses and gratifications theory and say that I use their tension to release mine own. Whatever. Hoblit does tension well in a tense movie.
Some strange twists in Toby Emmerich's plot, and Hoblit handles them well. He's not the best ever, but he does a pretty good job. Actually, this is the only thing Emmerich has ever written. Bully for him.
Okay, I must take a moment to mention the music. First of all, I love the original song Garth Brooks did for this movie, "When you come back to me again". Yes, I love a Garth Brooks song. Also, Michael Kamen (Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves) composed the score with some additional music from J. Peter Robinson. This little fact makes me very happy as I love Kamen! It is a very sad thing, indeed, that he died last year. Now we'll have to listen to John Williams score everything!
Okay, here's the end: do yourself a favour, and see this movie.
Idea: When his best friend, Gordo (Noah Emmerich), drags out his father's (Dennis Quaid) old radio equipment, John Sullivan (Jim Caviezel) discovers that he can communicate with his dead father 30 years in the past.
Two things that need immediate mention: 1) Yay for another great movie from the year 2000. I really feel like that year did me proud. 2) Another of April's top five tear-jerkers. However, this does not mean that you will cry. You see, I am particularly susceptible to father/son relationships and when they say "I love you" to each other. I'm pretty sure it has something to do with the fact that you aren't really allowed to do such things in my family.
Of course, as anyone interested in time travel/time interference can tell you, if you change one thing, you change everything. The movie centres around this idea (e.g. tagline: What if?), and it does it really well. I am awed by the bond Caviezel and Quaid build based solely on their voices vs. screen time. It's magical. And it takes talent to get us emotional invested in that kind of relationship.
Mystery/dramas seem to be Gregory Hoblit's (director) bread-and-butter (e.g. Fallen, Hart's War). I was about to say that he knows a thing or two about tension, but I realized that I talk about a director's ability to build tension a lot. Well, it's really important, okay? Or I watch a lot of tense movies. I guess this would be a good time to subscribe to uses and gratifications theory and say that I use their tension to release mine own. Whatever. Hoblit does tension well in a tense movie.
Some strange twists in Toby Emmerich's plot, and Hoblit handles them well. He's not the best ever, but he does a pretty good job. Actually, this is the only thing Emmerich has ever written. Bully for him.
Okay, I must take a moment to mention the music. First of all, I love the original song Garth Brooks did for this movie, "When you come back to me again". Yes, I love a Garth Brooks song. Also, Michael Kamen (Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves) composed the score with some additional music from J. Peter Robinson. This little fact makes me very happy as I love Kamen! It is a very sad thing, indeed, that he died last year. Now we'll have to listen to John Williams score everything!
Okay, here's the end: do yourself a favour, and see this movie.
Thursday, March 25, 2004
Singles (1992)
Summary: Steve (Campbell Scott) tries to get together with Linda (Kyra Sedgwick); Janet (Bridget Fonda) tries to get together with Cliff (Matt Dillon).
I know that sounds very vague and boring, but if you listen to the track that covers most of the film, "Dyslexic Heart" by Paul Westerberg, then you will be begin to get a feel for this mockumentary. I say mockumentary because several of the characters spend their time explaining things into the camera and the film is divided into segments by titles, which we already know I like.
Yay for Cameron Crowe! If he wasn't so critically acclaimed as it is, I might declare an ode to Crowe week. Now, that said, I do think Crowe is a brilliant writer/director, but this is not his best work. I mean, I love it, I think it's quirky, sweet, and real, but it's no Almost Famous or even a say anything . . . . I would even venture to declare this work transitional.
Quite frankly, though, I don't know how Crowe does it. He makes all these crazy implausible characters so very real, so, while you are watching them, you start thinking, "Hey! I know someone like that!". And when you realize that you probably don't, you wish you did. How does he do it? He's a master of his art.
Of the four I mentioned, Fonda and Scott are my favourites, but Sedgewick and Dillon are great as well. Of course, who I really loved in this movie was Eric Stolz, but that was really more for personal reasons than his character/performance. I read once that Crowe, after say anything . . . , made a deal with Stolz to put him in all of his future movies, so I sometimes spend my time looking for Stolz. Serious, though, Steve is a hoot (yup, I went there), and he wouldn't be without Scott in the role. It's the exact same thing for Janet. I must admit, it's really more of an ensemble cast, and I am a sucker for a good ensemble. This movie is a sucker punch to people like me: you never see it coming, and it gets you every time.
So, yeah. It's a great movie, and you should see it. Transitional movies are important because, if for no other reason, they are the glue holding together the beginning and end.
Summary: Steve (Campbell Scott) tries to get together with Linda (Kyra Sedgwick); Janet (Bridget Fonda) tries to get together with Cliff (Matt Dillon).
I know that sounds very vague and boring, but if you listen to the track that covers most of the film, "Dyslexic Heart" by Paul Westerberg, then you will be begin to get a feel for this mockumentary. I say mockumentary because several of the characters spend their time explaining things into the camera and the film is divided into segments by titles, which we already know I like.
Yay for Cameron Crowe! If he wasn't so critically acclaimed as it is, I might declare an ode to Crowe week. Now, that said, I do think Crowe is a brilliant writer/director, but this is not his best work. I mean, I love it, I think it's quirky, sweet, and real, but it's no Almost Famous or even a say anything . . . . I would even venture to declare this work transitional.
Quite frankly, though, I don't know how Crowe does it. He makes all these crazy implausible characters so very real, so, while you are watching them, you start thinking, "Hey! I know someone like that!". And when you realize that you probably don't, you wish you did. How does he do it? He's a master of his art.
Of the four I mentioned, Fonda and Scott are my favourites, but Sedgewick and Dillon are great as well. Of course, who I really loved in this movie was Eric Stolz, but that was really more for personal reasons than his character/performance. I read once that Crowe, after say anything . . . , made a deal with Stolz to put him in all of his future movies, so I sometimes spend my time looking for Stolz. Serious, though, Steve is a hoot (yup, I went there), and he wouldn't be without Scott in the role. It's the exact same thing for Janet. I must admit, it's really more of an ensemble cast, and I am a sucker for a good ensemble. This movie is a sucker punch to people like me: you never see it coming, and it gets you every time.
So, yeah. It's a great movie, and you should see it. Transitional movies are important because, if for no other reason, they are the glue holding together the beginning and end.
Wednesday, March 24, 2004
That Thing You Do! (1996)
Brief: After Chad (Giovanni Ribisi) breaks his arm, the Wonders (Johnathon Schaech, Steve Zahn, and Ethan Embry) implore Guy Patterson (Tom Everett Scott) to join their band in time for a competition. Guy's catchy drum beat helps propel them to stardom.
So cute! This film is light and charming, and I just love "That Thing You Do!", the song. I was singing it earlier, which is what inspired me to write about it.
Okay, so as you know, I am somewhat obsessed with commenting on directorial debuts, and this is Tom Hanks' first. He also wrote the script and co-stars as the Wonders' manager, Mr. White. Alright, truth be told, he directed some episodes of TV shows before this, but they aren't shows that I have ever watched, so I'm not going to concern myself with them. Hanks has always struck me as a charming and delightful everyday man, and he appears to be attempting, through this movie, to shape Scott in his image. Now, judging by some things that Scott has made after this film (e.g. An American Werewolf in Paris), Hanks doesn't seem very successful, but every good star has a laundry list of crap movies behind him.
I love, love, j'adore, Embry and Zahn, and their characters in this movie torture me. They are zany and fun and cute and sweet. Liv Tyler is also in the movie, although I didn't mention it before, and she is as lovely as ever. I think she is so beautiful, and she genuinely possesses some light that seems to shine from within her.
But, my favourite character in this movie is Lamarr (Omar Babatunde), one of the staff at the hotel in Hollywood that the Wonders end up at. I remember watching this movie with someone who said that they hated Lamarr, but he just kills me. He's hilarious and warm. He makes everyone feel special and welcome at the hotel, and I swear that feeling carries right across the screen and inside you.
This movie is so happy! It's fun and simple, like sunshine.
Pan: Picking Up the Pieces, with Woody Allen, David Schwimmer, and Kiefer Sutherland, sucks. There is one, just one, funny joke in that entire disaster.
Brief: After Chad (Giovanni Ribisi) breaks his arm, the Wonders (Johnathon Schaech, Steve Zahn, and Ethan Embry) implore Guy Patterson (Tom Everett Scott) to join their band in time for a competition. Guy's catchy drum beat helps propel them to stardom.
So cute! This film is light and charming, and I just love "That Thing You Do!", the song. I was singing it earlier, which is what inspired me to write about it.
Okay, so as you know, I am somewhat obsessed with commenting on directorial debuts, and this is Tom Hanks' first. He also wrote the script and co-stars as the Wonders' manager, Mr. White. Alright, truth be told, he directed some episodes of TV shows before this, but they aren't shows that I have ever watched, so I'm not going to concern myself with them. Hanks has always struck me as a charming and delightful everyday man, and he appears to be attempting, through this movie, to shape Scott in his image. Now, judging by some things that Scott has made after this film (e.g. An American Werewolf in Paris), Hanks doesn't seem very successful, but every good star has a laundry list of crap movies behind him.
I love, love, j'adore, Embry and Zahn, and their characters in this movie torture me. They are zany and fun and cute and sweet. Liv Tyler is also in the movie, although I didn't mention it before, and she is as lovely as ever. I think she is so beautiful, and she genuinely possesses some light that seems to shine from within her.
But, my favourite character in this movie is Lamarr (Omar Babatunde), one of the staff at the hotel in Hollywood that the Wonders end up at. I remember watching this movie with someone who said that they hated Lamarr, but he just kills me. He's hilarious and warm. He makes everyone feel special and welcome at the hotel, and I swear that feeling carries right across the screen and inside you.
This movie is so happy! It's fun and simple, like sunshine.
Pan: Picking Up the Pieces, with Woody Allen, David Schwimmer, and Kiefer Sutherland, sucks. There is one, just one, funny joke in that entire disaster.
Tuesday, March 23, 2004
After Alice (1999) or Eye of the Killer (2000)
Short: An alcoholic detective (Kiefer Sutherland), following a head trauma, beings to have psychic vision when he comes into contact with a personal object of the deceased. He teams up with another psychic (Henry Czerny) and a parapsychologist (?) (Polly Walker) when a serial killer who has been dormant for a decade begins to kill again.
About the two titles: This is one of those movies that is released on video under a different name. So, if you are looking for it, you have to check both.
Whoa, can I just tell you that I liked this movie? That made me pretty happy. See, there's this thing with Sutherland: he's got huge talent, but the movies he often makes are lacking. Finally, this movie is starting to show a fit. Not quite like a glove, but we are getting closer. I love the way Sutherland plays this character, with him slowly getting his life together at the same time that he appears to be losing his mind.
Jeff Miller's (screenwriter) plot is something to behold. Yes, it's got some violence to it (it's about a serial killer, n'est-ce pas?), but it's got some clever twists as well. There are some moments of corny dialogue, but I've come to recognize that even people on this side of the screen say some lame stuff sometimes. Its major flaw is the couple of holes that are left gaping after the plot is seemingly all sown up. Of course, if you are not as neurotic as I am, you may not notice them.
Paul Marcus has directed only one other major motion picture, Break Up which was in the same vein, but not nearly as good as this one. Yes, I have seen Break Up. Marcus tells a good story, spins tension pretty well, and seems to like working with Sutherland. Good enough for me.
This movie is pretty good. I know I already said that, but it is. It's just the kind of movie I would like; it's got the paranormal, it's got people effecting change, it's even got a little love. And a murder mystery. I do love a good murder mystery.
Short: An alcoholic detective (Kiefer Sutherland), following a head trauma, beings to have psychic vision when he comes into contact with a personal object of the deceased. He teams up with another psychic (Henry Czerny) and a parapsychologist (?) (Polly Walker) when a serial killer who has been dormant for a decade begins to kill again.
About the two titles: This is one of those movies that is released on video under a different name. So, if you are looking for it, you have to check both.
Whoa, can I just tell you that I liked this movie? That made me pretty happy. See, there's this thing with Sutherland: he's got huge talent, but the movies he often makes are lacking. Finally, this movie is starting to show a fit. Not quite like a glove, but we are getting closer. I love the way Sutherland plays this character, with him slowly getting his life together at the same time that he appears to be losing his mind.
Jeff Miller's (screenwriter) plot is something to behold. Yes, it's got some violence to it (it's about a serial killer, n'est-ce pas?), but it's got some clever twists as well. There are some moments of corny dialogue, but I've come to recognize that even people on this side of the screen say some lame stuff sometimes. Its major flaw is the couple of holes that are left gaping after the plot is seemingly all sown up. Of course, if you are not as neurotic as I am, you may not notice them.
Paul Marcus has directed only one other major motion picture, Break Up which was in the same vein, but not nearly as good as this one. Yes, I have seen Break Up. Marcus tells a good story, spins tension pretty well, and seems to like working with Sutherland. Good enough for me.
This movie is pretty good. I know I already said that, but it is. It's just the kind of movie I would like; it's got the paranormal, it's got people effecting change, it's even got a little love. And a murder mystery. I do love a good murder mystery.
Monday, March 22, 2004
Secretary (2002)
Premise: Upon being released from a mental institution, Lee Holloway (Maggie Gyllenhaal) takes a job as the secretary of a demanding lawyer, E. Edward Grey (James Spader). Their relationship quickly takes a sadomasochistic turn.
Yes, gentle reader, I suppose you could say that I watched an S&M movie. It's not like I watched S&M porn, jsut a movie with an S&M plot. So what?
This idea may shock you, but it is actually a brilliant comedy. My affection for Jake Gyllenhaal also applies to his older sister. She positively shines as a quirkily sensual masochist, and Spader brings down the house as a reserved, repressed sadist. The film is bloody brilliant with their great performances.
I have not seen anything else by Steven Shainberg (director), but, from what I can tell, he is uncannily comedic. Honestly, just go with it. If you don't, you won't understand why it is so funny. Also, Erica Cressida Wilson doesn't seem to have written anything else, but her adaptation of Mary Gaitskill's short story is spot on.
Right at the end of the film, Lee gives this look into that camera at a friend aptly interpreted as "Don't judge me." That's the way I feel about the film. Just get over this whole S&M thing if it makes you uncomfortable. It's genius, and I think you'll love it. Especially those red sharpies.
Premise: Upon being released from a mental institution, Lee Holloway (Maggie Gyllenhaal) takes a job as the secretary of a demanding lawyer, E. Edward Grey (James Spader). Their relationship quickly takes a sadomasochistic turn.
Yes, gentle reader, I suppose you could say that I watched an S&M movie. It's not like I watched S&M porn, jsut a movie with an S&M plot. So what?
This idea may shock you, but it is actually a brilliant comedy. My affection for Jake Gyllenhaal also applies to his older sister. She positively shines as a quirkily sensual masochist, and Spader brings down the house as a reserved, repressed sadist. The film is bloody brilliant with their great performances.
I have not seen anything else by Steven Shainberg (director), but, from what I can tell, he is uncannily comedic. Honestly, just go with it. If you don't, you won't understand why it is so funny. Also, Erica Cressida Wilson doesn't seem to have written anything else, but her adaptation of Mary Gaitskill's short story is spot on.
Right at the end of the film, Lee gives this look into that camera at a friend aptly interpreted as "Don't judge me." That's the way I feel about the film. Just get over this whole S&M thing if it makes you uncomfortable. It's genius, and I think you'll love it. Especially those red sharpies.
Sunday, March 21, 2004
Five Corners (1988)
Premise: When the man (John Turturro) who attempted to rape her is released from prison, Linda (Jodie Foster) turns to the man who saved her, Harry (Tim Robbins), who has in the meantime become a Buddhist/pacifist/civil rights activist. It's 1964 in the Bronx, what can I say?
What is this movie? Honestly? There's that slightly racist and scary plot, and one very strangely linked subplot. This guy sells his drunken girlfriend and her best friend to this teenager and the exchange student he's hosting, and they seem to get over it right quick. Plus, there's arrows flying everywhere. Arrows? Robin Hood? C'mon, now, that's just excessive.
What were Tony Bill (director) and John Patrick Shanley (screenwriter) thinking? Okay, Tony Bill also did
Untamed Heart, which has a power over me, so I guess I shouldn't be too disparaging, but . . . What is this? I have no idea!
The most strange and horrifying things happen in this movie. Everything about it is off. I don't know. Okay, Robbins and Foster are obviously two of the most talented people in Hollywood, period, so I can't blame them. It's that subplot. I don't get it. Is it social commentary? Is it comedic relief? A big waste of time?
The only unifying force (besides Robbins and Foster) is John Newton Howard's score. I don't know how he does it. Plus the kick period music. Can't let that go unmentioned.
So messed up. Just weird and little macabre. I shake my head in confusion.
Premise: When the man (John Turturro) who attempted to rape her is released from prison, Linda (Jodie Foster) turns to the man who saved her, Harry (Tim Robbins), who has in the meantime become a Buddhist/pacifist/civil rights activist. It's 1964 in the Bronx, what can I say?
What is this movie? Honestly? There's that slightly racist and scary plot, and one very strangely linked subplot. This guy sells his drunken girlfriend and her best friend to this teenager and the exchange student he's hosting, and they seem to get over it right quick. Plus, there's arrows flying everywhere. Arrows? Robin Hood? C'mon, now, that's just excessive.
What were Tony Bill (director) and John Patrick Shanley (screenwriter) thinking? Okay, Tony Bill also did
Untamed Heart, which has a power over me, so I guess I shouldn't be too disparaging, but . . . What is this? I have no idea!
The most strange and horrifying things happen in this movie. Everything about it is off. I don't know. Okay, Robbins and Foster are obviously two of the most talented people in Hollywood, period, so I can't blame them. It's that subplot. I don't get it. Is it social commentary? Is it comedic relief? A big waste of time?
The only unifying force (besides Robbins and Foster) is John Newton Howard's score. I don't know how he does it. Plus the kick period music. Can't let that go unmentioned.
So messed up. Just weird and little macabre. I shake my head in confusion.
Saturday, March 20, 2004
Before Sunrise (1995)
Idea: Celine (Julie Delpy) and Jesse (Ethan Hawke) meet on the Budapest-Vienna train, where Jesse convinces Celine to get off the train and spend the day with him before he leaves for America the next morning.
Now, I may have personal grievances towards Hawke right now, but he used to be in my Top 5 actors. I find that difficult to ignore when writing this blog. Damn his easy talent!
As you might surmise, you can't put two good looking college-aged kids together like this and expect them not to get together. The power of the short time frame is that it causes them to dispense with all the bullshit. In the beginning of a relationship, most people spend their time putting their best selves forward instead of their real selves. Let me let you in on a little secret: no matter how great this character you have come up with to play is, the real you is at least ten times more desirable.
Delpy is so sweet, all quiet beauty and unassuming grace. Hawke, despite my present distaste, is as gregarious as always. Not in an overt way, but you can't help but like him. He comes across as this sensitive genius in a world of ignorance, and you find yourself falling for it until it's too late to get out. And he does what I refer to as "greasy 1994 Ethan Hawke" so well. Damn him.
Looking at Richard Linklater's (director and co-writer) filmography, it all make sense. He did Dazed and Confused, he did The Newton Boys, he did Waking Life. He also apparently did Before Sunset, the sequel to Before Sunrise, for 2004. I will have to look into that. He is the quintessential Gen X-er, portrayed on the screen by Hawke. Or he is has a big crush on Hawke. Tough call to make.
A story like this is only as good as its cinematography. Thank you, Lee Daniels, you made me fall in love with Europe far before I had ever been.
So, this movie is sweet and simple. It is a little over the top, but I think it needs to be to make this story believable. It is a valentine to love itself, and love is nothing if not over the top.
Idea: Celine (Julie Delpy) and Jesse (Ethan Hawke) meet on the Budapest-Vienna train, where Jesse convinces Celine to get off the train and spend the day with him before he leaves for America the next morning.
Now, I may have personal grievances towards Hawke right now, but he used to be in my Top 5 actors. I find that difficult to ignore when writing this blog. Damn his easy talent!
As you might surmise, you can't put two good looking college-aged kids together like this and expect them not to get together. The power of the short time frame is that it causes them to dispense with all the bullshit. In the beginning of a relationship, most people spend their time putting their best selves forward instead of their real selves. Let me let you in on a little secret: no matter how great this character you have come up with to play is, the real you is at least ten times more desirable.
Delpy is so sweet, all quiet beauty and unassuming grace. Hawke, despite my present distaste, is as gregarious as always. Not in an overt way, but you can't help but like him. He comes across as this sensitive genius in a world of ignorance, and you find yourself falling for it until it's too late to get out. And he does what I refer to as "greasy 1994 Ethan Hawke" so well. Damn him.
Looking at Richard Linklater's (director and co-writer) filmography, it all make sense. He did Dazed and Confused, he did The Newton Boys, he did Waking Life. He also apparently did Before Sunset, the sequel to Before Sunrise, for 2004. I will have to look into that. He is the quintessential Gen X-er, portrayed on the screen by Hawke. Or he is has a big crush on Hawke. Tough call to make.
A story like this is only as good as its cinematography. Thank you, Lee Daniels, you made me fall in love with Europe far before I had ever been.
So, this movie is sweet and simple. It is a little over the top, but I think it needs to be to make this story believable. It is a valentine to love itself, and love is nothing if not over the top.
Friday, March 19, 2004
Suicide Kings (1997)
Summary: Four college students (Henry Thomas, Jay Mohr, Sean Patrick Flanery, and Jeremy Sisto) kidnap a mob boss (Christopher Walken) to enlist his help in locating one of their sisters who is kidnapped as well.
The movie really threw me for a loop. Peter O'Fallon (director) and Josh McKinney, Gina Goldman, and Wayne Allan Rice (screewriters) did such a good job of messing me up. I spent the majority of the movie assuming it was all one kid, then they tried to cast the suspicion on another which I knew was crap, but when it turned out to be the third kid . . . man. Especially Peter O'Fallon. Whoa. Tension is so much more taut when drawn against the patience of friendship.
Regardless, what is up with Graeme Revell's score? There is this one scene which is supposed to be especially tense, only it isn't because of his rushing score. The scene would have been much more tense if there was no music at all, you know? The crackling fire in the background, the crunch of broken glass, the buzz of the bone saw. I would have bought that. A good composer knows that silence is just as powerful (if not more so) than sound.
I now have no doubt that Sean Patrick Flanery has got it. Jeremy Sisto, for the first time ever, wasn't the scariest character in the movie. And, I'm sorry to say it, but Henry Thomas is always going to the Elliot from E.T.. I know that's unfair, but it's true. Every time I see him in anything, I think, "Is that the kid from E.T.?" And then I spend the whole movie thinking, "That's the kid from E.T.!" I don't know why this phenomenon does not occur when I see Drew Barrymore.
So, is this movie good? Not particularly. But I will admit that it did, to a certain extent, blow my mind. I keep making this whoosh noise with my mouth, like all the air being forced out between pursed lips, but you can't hear it. If you have a vivid imagination and can figure out what I am doing, then you will know exactly what I think of the movie. Good Luck.
Summary: Four college students (Henry Thomas, Jay Mohr, Sean Patrick Flanery, and Jeremy Sisto) kidnap a mob boss (Christopher Walken) to enlist his help in locating one of their sisters who is kidnapped as well.
The movie really threw me for a loop. Peter O'Fallon (director) and Josh McKinney, Gina Goldman, and Wayne Allan Rice (screewriters) did such a good job of messing me up. I spent the majority of the movie assuming it was all one kid, then they tried to cast the suspicion on another which I knew was crap, but when it turned out to be the third kid . . . man. Especially Peter O'Fallon. Whoa. Tension is so much more taut when drawn against the patience of friendship.
Regardless, what is up with Graeme Revell's score? There is this one scene which is supposed to be especially tense, only it isn't because of his rushing score. The scene would have been much more tense if there was no music at all, you know? The crackling fire in the background, the crunch of broken glass, the buzz of the bone saw. I would have bought that. A good composer knows that silence is just as powerful (if not more so) than sound.
I now have no doubt that Sean Patrick Flanery has got it. Jeremy Sisto, for the first time ever, wasn't the scariest character in the movie. And, I'm sorry to say it, but Henry Thomas is always going to the Elliot from E.T.. I know that's unfair, but it's true. Every time I see him in anything, I think, "Is that the kid from E.T.?" And then I spend the whole movie thinking, "That's the kid from E.T.!" I don't know why this phenomenon does not occur when I see Drew Barrymore.
So, is this movie good? Not particularly. But I will admit that it did, to a certain extent, blow my mind. I keep making this whoosh noise with my mouth, like all the air being forced out between pursed lips, but you can't hear it. If you have a vivid imagination and can figure out what I am doing, then you will know exactly what I think of the movie. Good Luck.
Thursday, March 18, 2004
The Virgin Suicides (1999)
Plan: A group of teenage boys dissect the events leading up to the suicides of the shut-in teenage girls across the street.
Okay, so it's a bit depressing. It makes sense, though, to tell the story from the point of view of those they leave behind. Suicide is a very selfish thing act. It seems as though you are leaving all your problems behind, solving them for everyone else. Instead, the victims are all those you leave behind, simply foistering your problems onto them. As Mitch Anthony said, "Suicide is a permanent solution to a temporary problem."
That said, beautiful movie. Sofia Coppola writes and directs with such poetry. Everything in her works always seems so fluid, never forced. She's like a breeze. Gentle, soft, but with the slightest hint of winter.
The girls, these blonde beauties, are so very empty. Their parents (James Woods and Kathleen Turner) live in a world apart. I don't mean that in a parents-do-not-understand-what-it-is-like-to-be-teens way because, trust me, they do. It is because they do that they strive to protect them. But, as every parent must realize, they cannot protect their children. In this case, their protection kills them.
Plus, if you don't like the downer plot line, there's always the kick 70s soundtrack. Did I mention that it is set in the 1970s? Well, it is.
To review: Sophia Coppola: bad actress, amazing director.
Plan: A group of teenage boys dissect the events leading up to the suicides of the shut-in teenage girls across the street.
Okay, so it's a bit depressing. It makes sense, though, to tell the story from the point of view of those they leave behind. Suicide is a very selfish thing act. It seems as though you are leaving all your problems behind, solving them for everyone else. Instead, the victims are all those you leave behind, simply foistering your problems onto them. As Mitch Anthony said, "Suicide is a permanent solution to a temporary problem."
That said, beautiful movie. Sofia Coppola writes and directs with such poetry. Everything in her works always seems so fluid, never forced. She's like a breeze. Gentle, soft, but with the slightest hint of winter.
The girls, these blonde beauties, are so very empty. Their parents (James Woods and Kathleen Turner) live in a world apart. I don't mean that in a parents-do-not-understand-what-it-is-like-to-be-teens way because, trust me, they do. It is because they do that they strive to protect them. But, as every parent must realize, they cannot protect their children. In this case, their protection kills them.
Plus, if you don't like the downer plot line, there's always the kick 70s soundtrack. Did I mention that it is set in the 1970s? Well, it is.
To review: Sophia Coppola: bad actress, amazing director.
Wednesday, March 17, 2004
Return to Me (2000)
Short: A widower (David Duchovny) falls for the recipient (Minnie Driver) of his wife's (Joley Richardson) heart.
Yet another great movie from the year 2000. Good year.
What a fabulous romantic comedy. All the confusion and nervousness and meddling friends/relatives is great. Alright, it's sad at the beginning, but it has to be in order to set you up for the comedy in the rest of the film. It's so sweet, romantic, with a kick sound track. Exactly the way women and men deserve to be romanced.
Bonnie Hunt should definitely direct more movies. Her directorial debut has some of the best comedic elements I've seen in ages, just like under-rated Hunt herself. She's just hilarious and should make more movies. She's also credited with story and screenplay, and we should be so lucky to see more of her name in the future.
Driver and Duchovny are perfect in this attractive movie. The best, though, are Hunt and James Belushi as Driver's best friends, and Carroll O'Connor, Robert Loggia, Eddie Jones, and William Bronder as these four old men who play cards and argue. They are hilarious. Oh, they run a restaurant. An Irish-Italian restaurant. Yes, that is a source of much of the humour. What's your point?
Honestly, though, a romantic comedy as romantic comedies are meant to be. I know I've said that before, but I am forced to say it again. It's done too well not to say it.
Short: A widower (David Duchovny) falls for the recipient (Minnie Driver) of his wife's (Joley Richardson) heart.
Yet another great movie from the year 2000. Good year.
What a fabulous romantic comedy. All the confusion and nervousness and meddling friends/relatives is great. Alright, it's sad at the beginning, but it has to be in order to set you up for the comedy in the rest of the film. It's so sweet, romantic, with a kick sound track. Exactly the way women and men deserve to be romanced.
Bonnie Hunt should definitely direct more movies. Her directorial debut has some of the best comedic elements I've seen in ages, just like under-rated Hunt herself. She's just hilarious and should make more movies. She's also credited with story and screenplay, and we should be so lucky to see more of her name in the future.
Driver and Duchovny are perfect in this attractive movie. The best, though, are Hunt and James Belushi as Driver's best friends, and Carroll O'Connor, Robert Loggia, Eddie Jones, and William Bronder as these four old men who play cards and argue. They are hilarious. Oh, they run a restaurant. An Irish-Italian restaurant. Yes, that is a source of much of the humour. What's your point?
Honestly, though, a romantic comedy as romantic comedies are meant to be. I know I've said that before, but I am forced to say it again. It's done too well not to say it.
Tuesday, March 16, 2004
Igby Goes Down (2002)
Plan: Igby (Kieran Culkin) suffers from what I have dubbed poor little rich kid syndrome, only he just runs away instead of becoming a drug addict. His mom, Mimi (Susan Sarandon), and his brother, Oliver (Ryan Phillippe try to reel him in to get him back to school and because Mimi is dying. He runs away to his godfather/sponsor's (Jeff Goldblum) mistress, Rachel (Amanda Peet). Also, he hooks up with Sookie (Claire Danes).
I suppose I could have bi-passed that whole explanation if I just said it was a lot like The Catcher in the Rye. Nevertheless, I think that even if you didn't like that book, you can still enjoy this movie.
To be honest, I find myself very torn while watching the film. On one occasion, I focused on the drama. I cried. On another, I focused on the comedy. I laughed a lot more.
And I think that is a testament to the high quality of the film. It is dramedy, but not in the way I have mentioned before. The drama and the comedy neither begin nor end. They overlap in every moment of the film. It all depends on your point of view.
Which must be that writer/director Burr Steers is "deeply and importantly talented", right? Well, for a directorial and screenplay debut, it shows promise beyond mention. It has all the elements of genius: great nuance and intelligent style. But, (and there's always a catch, isn't there?) he went on to pen How to Lose a Guy in 10 Days, which was formulaic drivel. It could just be that he isn't meant for romantic comedies. So much the better.
But this character he has created in Igby is the stuff young careers are made of. He has cast Culkin in a stroke of the fortuitous for both of them, as Culkin shines in this role, bringing the necessary power to the film.
This film is the sort that I love to see because it is the sort that actors simply do. Do you know what I mean? You know when you watch some smaller indie pic, and, out of nowhere, you catch some big name star in a small role? It's like that. It is one of those few times when you see stars actually drop the character they project to the world and act. They put something out there. Some part of themselves, I suspect.
In that light, this is the best I have ever seen Goldblum, Sarandon, Phillippe, or Danes. Especially Goldblum and Sarandon. Wow. Just wow. I didn't think Goldblum could do things like this.
You must see this. Must. Okay, there's some nudity/sexuality/drug abuse/language issues. I don't really care. Unlike so many movies that claim they are representative of real life, I believe this one actually come close. That's too good to ignore.
Plan: Igby (Kieran Culkin) suffers from what I have dubbed poor little rich kid syndrome, only he just runs away instead of becoming a drug addict. His mom, Mimi (Susan Sarandon), and his brother, Oliver (Ryan Phillippe try to reel him in to get him back to school and because Mimi is dying. He runs away to his godfather/sponsor's (Jeff Goldblum) mistress, Rachel (Amanda Peet). Also, he hooks up with Sookie (Claire Danes).
I suppose I could have bi-passed that whole explanation if I just said it was a lot like The Catcher in the Rye. Nevertheless, I think that even if you didn't like that book, you can still enjoy this movie.
To be honest, I find myself very torn while watching the film. On one occasion, I focused on the drama. I cried. On another, I focused on the comedy. I laughed a lot more.
And I think that is a testament to the high quality of the film. It is dramedy, but not in the way I have mentioned before. The drama and the comedy neither begin nor end. They overlap in every moment of the film. It all depends on your point of view.
Which must be that writer/director Burr Steers is "deeply and importantly talented", right? Well, for a directorial and screenplay debut, it shows promise beyond mention. It has all the elements of genius: great nuance and intelligent style. But, (and there's always a catch, isn't there?) he went on to pen How to Lose a Guy in 10 Days, which was formulaic drivel. It could just be that he isn't meant for romantic comedies. So much the better.
But this character he has created in Igby is the stuff young careers are made of. He has cast Culkin in a stroke of the fortuitous for both of them, as Culkin shines in this role, bringing the necessary power to the film.
This film is the sort that I love to see because it is the sort that actors simply do. Do you know what I mean? You know when you watch some smaller indie pic, and, out of nowhere, you catch some big name star in a small role? It's like that. It is one of those few times when you see stars actually drop the character they project to the world and act. They put something out there. Some part of themselves, I suspect.
In that light, this is the best I have ever seen Goldblum, Sarandon, Phillippe, or Danes. Especially Goldblum and Sarandon. Wow. Just wow. I didn't think Goldblum could do things like this.
You must see this. Must. Okay, there's some nudity/sexuality/drug abuse/language issues. I don't really care. Unlike so many movies that claim they are representative of real life, I believe this one actually come close. That's too good to ignore.
Monday, March 15, 2004
American Outlaws (2001)
Plot: Jesse James, his family, and some town folk go to war against the railroad in order to keep their land after returning home from the American Civil War.
Okay, now it looks like I am my father's daughter and love westerns. Not in the slightest. After Colin Farrell's tour-de-force American debut in Joel Schumacher's Tigerland, I became interested in his career. He may be a powerhouse performer capable of stealing scenes from even Al Pacino, but I seriously doubt his powers of discernment.
If you recall my review of Young Guns, it's basically the same movie, only more stylish. Instead of the Brat Pack, it's Farrell, Gabriel Macht, Scott Caan, Gergory Smith, William McCormack, and Nathaniel Arcand as the required Native American. Actually, it's like Young Guns and Young Guns 2 all rolled up into one, so you could skip both of them and just watch this one.
Now, any movie with the tag line "Bad is good again" pretty much gives away how bad the movie is going to be. What can I say? Director Les Mayfield and writer Roderick Taylor do their best to piece together fact and fiction for their good-looking cast, but they fall short. As far as robbery movies go, it's better than Newton Boys (same concept) but not quite Point Break. Of course, I have a particular soft spot for Point Break, so that may be a poor comparison.
It's just fun. All I ever expected from it was fun, and I was free from disappointment.
Plot: Jesse James, his family, and some town folk go to war against the railroad in order to keep their land after returning home from the American Civil War.
Okay, now it looks like I am my father's daughter and love westerns. Not in the slightest. After Colin Farrell's tour-de-force American debut in Joel Schumacher's Tigerland, I became interested in his career. He may be a powerhouse performer capable of stealing scenes from even Al Pacino, but I seriously doubt his powers of discernment.
If you recall my review of Young Guns, it's basically the same movie, only more stylish. Instead of the Brat Pack, it's Farrell, Gabriel Macht, Scott Caan, Gergory Smith, William McCormack, and Nathaniel Arcand as the required Native American. Actually, it's like Young Guns and Young Guns 2 all rolled up into one, so you could skip both of them and just watch this one.
Now, any movie with the tag line "Bad is good again" pretty much gives away how bad the movie is going to be. What can I say? Director Les Mayfield and writer Roderick Taylor do their best to piece together fact and fiction for their good-looking cast, but they fall short. As far as robbery movies go, it's better than Newton Boys (same concept) but not quite Point Break. Of course, I have a particular soft spot for Point Break, so that may be a poor comparison.
It's just fun. All I ever expected from it was fun, and I was free from disappointment.
Sunday, March 14, 2004
Identity (2003)
Premise: Someone is killing off the visitors at motel in the middle of nowhere during a flood.
Okay, so I know that sounds like a really boring horror movie, and I bet you are wondering why I even watched a horror movie in the first place. If I reveal to you now what is really going on in the movie, you will have no cause to see it, except that it is a really, really cool idea.
So how can I put this? The killer is someone I found creepy right from the start, and there is a really sweet twist as well. Of course, when you figure it all out, you might get pissed off. I wouldn't agree with you at that point, but I know what it is like to finally know the truth and be unimpressed.
As you also know, nothing gets me like a great ensemble cast. John Cusack eventually establishes himself as the protagonist, but he has to wrestle the title away from Ray Liotta, Amanda Peet, Rebecca De Mornay, John Hawkes, Alfred Molina, John C. McGinley, Clea Duvall, Jake Busey, William Lee Scott, Leila Kenzel, and Pruitt Taylor Vince. Okay, I pretty much just named the entire cast. That's how ensemble it is. Just thinking about it makes me giddy.
James Mangold, who manages to get just the right amount of grit to keep my attention, also directed such films as Girl, Interrupted and Kate & Leopold. I think that is sufficient to suggest that he isn't a one-genre kind of man. Nevertheless, he could have done more to maintain the suspense the film requires. Not the best horror film director (who can beat Alfred Hitchcock?) but very, very far from the worst.
As for Michael Cooney, I haven't seen a single other film he has scripted. I will reserve my judgment until I know more.
I may have been cryptic about the plot, but your confusion now is worth the enjoyment of the film later. Such, such a great concept. Of course, Blockbuster and Sony Pictures may beshrew me yet and tell you more on the back of the box. Grrr.
Premise: Someone is killing off the visitors at motel in the middle of nowhere during a flood.
Okay, so I know that sounds like a really boring horror movie, and I bet you are wondering why I even watched a horror movie in the first place. If I reveal to you now what is really going on in the movie, you will have no cause to see it, except that it is a really, really cool idea.
So how can I put this? The killer is someone I found creepy right from the start, and there is a really sweet twist as well. Of course, when you figure it all out, you might get pissed off. I wouldn't agree with you at that point, but I know what it is like to finally know the truth and be unimpressed.
As you also know, nothing gets me like a great ensemble cast. John Cusack eventually establishes himself as the protagonist, but he has to wrestle the title away from Ray Liotta, Amanda Peet, Rebecca De Mornay, John Hawkes, Alfred Molina, John C. McGinley, Clea Duvall, Jake Busey, William Lee Scott, Leila Kenzel, and Pruitt Taylor Vince. Okay, I pretty much just named the entire cast. That's how ensemble it is. Just thinking about it makes me giddy.
James Mangold, who manages to get just the right amount of grit to keep my attention, also directed such films as Girl, Interrupted and Kate & Leopold. I think that is sufficient to suggest that he isn't a one-genre kind of man. Nevertheless, he could have done more to maintain the suspense the film requires. Not the best horror film director (who can beat Alfred Hitchcock?) but very, very far from the worst.
As for Michael Cooney, I haven't seen a single other film he has scripted. I will reserve my judgment until I know more.
I may have been cryptic about the plot, but your confusion now is worth the enjoyment of the film later. Such, such a great concept. Of course, Blockbuster and Sony Pictures may beshrew me yet and tell you more on the back of the box. Grrr.
Saturday, March 13, 2004
The Boondock Saints (1999)
Brief: Twins Connor (Sean Patrick Flanery) and Murphy (Norman Reedus) believe that God wants them to rid Boston of all its "evil men". FBI agent Paul Smecker (Willem Dafoe), with the help of three Boston policemen, seeks to capture them.
Boondocks, the: wilderness, hinterland. You figure out the connection.
Yay for Irish-Catholic Boston! So much more interesting than Irish-Catholic Brooklyn. Brooklyn is over done.
Of course, in this case, Toronto stands in for Boston in this case, but that makes no difference in movies. Also, Norman Reedus' accent slips from Irish to Southern United States, but he is convincing nonetheless. Sean Patrick Flanery, although apparently raised in Texas, doesn't seem to have the same problem. He seems to want to play straight man to Reedus' Murphy, all high intensity, but Murphy's not reckless enough to need someone to reel him in. Oh, well. He adds a guiding force to their quest.
Did I mention that this uber-successful cult movie is really hilarious? I know, I know, it's about people killing people, but it's still damn funny. Rampant homophobia, stereotypes, multiple languages, it's all hilarious. I just love it.
The Boondock Saints is pretty much the only movie Troy Duffy (writer/director) has done. Is his work any good? Is this movie really anything to go on? I don't know. We'll have to wait to find out.
I think it's hilarious, but it's a cult movie for a reason. Cult movies are never particularly impressive. They simply posses a "je ne sais quoi" that works for some and holds no power over most.
Brief: Twins Connor (Sean Patrick Flanery) and Murphy (Norman Reedus) believe that God wants them to rid Boston of all its "evil men". FBI agent Paul Smecker (Willem Dafoe), with the help of three Boston policemen, seeks to capture them.
Boondocks, the: wilderness, hinterland. You figure out the connection.
Yay for Irish-Catholic Boston! So much more interesting than Irish-Catholic Brooklyn. Brooklyn is over done.
Of course, in this case, Toronto stands in for Boston in this case, but that makes no difference in movies. Also, Norman Reedus' accent slips from Irish to Southern United States, but he is convincing nonetheless. Sean Patrick Flanery, although apparently raised in Texas, doesn't seem to have the same problem. He seems to want to play straight man to Reedus' Murphy, all high intensity, but Murphy's not reckless enough to need someone to reel him in. Oh, well. He adds a guiding force to their quest.
Did I mention that this uber-successful cult movie is really hilarious? I know, I know, it's about people killing people, but it's still damn funny. Rampant homophobia, stereotypes, multiple languages, it's all hilarious. I just love it.
The Boondock Saints is pretty much the only movie Troy Duffy (writer/director) has done. Is his work any good? Is this movie really anything to go on? I don't know. We'll have to wait to find out.
I think it's hilarious, but it's a cult movie for a reason. Cult movies are never particularly impressive. They simply posses a "je ne sais quoi" that works for some and holds no power over most.
Friday, March 12, 2004
High Fidelity (2000)
Idea: Upon being dumped by his long-term girlfriend, Laura (Iben Hjejle), Rob Gordon (John Cusack), the owner and manager of an elitist record store, Championship Vinyl, decides to revisit his Top 5 worst break-ups to figure out why women keep leaving him. Jack Black and Todd Louiso also star as Rob's strange employees.
Secret: I just realized today what the double entendre in the title referred to. I only got half of it before. Nick Hornby, who penned the bestseller on which this film is based, seems to really like double entendres (e.g. About a Boy). Also, he always seems to revel in creating these absolute asses as protagonists, and he can endear them to you. Genius. Staggering genius.
So, yes, Rob Gordon is not a good person. Well, not particularly good. But, as always, Cusack with his disarming charm combined with Hornby's original talent, and its adaptation for the screen by D.V. DeVincentis, Steve Pink, John Cusack, and Scott Rosenberg will win you over. Time and time again they cast their spell over you. In the film, as in life, it is the little things that get you. In fact, they just kill me. It's always the little things.
Of course, Championship Vinyl would be deathly boring without Black and Louiso to lend a hand. Black is his usual larger-than-life self (best in a supporting role, I feel), and Louiso's Dick has an inferiority complex to be reckoned with. Charm, again. All charm.
Oh yeah, Catherine Zeta-Jones, Bruce Springsteen, Lisa Bonet, Tim Robbins, Lili Taylor (who I love!), Sarah Gilbert, among others, all do their part to bring together this adventure into the mind of a music obsessed introspective nerd. Yes, when you love anything as much as Rob loves music, you are a bit of a nerd.
Stephen Frears' direction is as charming and active as the cast. I say active for it is the opposite of passive. He seems to get right in there with his characters, feeling and fighting and flirting along the way. Simple wonderful. He does it in all his movies, in fact, and quite the impressive list they do make (My Best Friend's Wedding, The Hi-Lo Country, and Dangerous Liaisons, just to name a few). I love that he does not restrict himself to any particular genre, and his eclectic nature gives power to his creations.
As Rob says, "it's not what you're like, it's what you like". I agree. Call it shallow if you want, but you will have to admit that you prefer similarities in people. You like that they like the same stuff as you (be it religion, movies, books, television, music, cooking, what have you) because it reinforces your feelings of self-worth and gives you something to talk about. So Rob is a bit of an ass. So what? This movie is all charm, and it will not fail to win you over.
Idea: Upon being dumped by his long-term girlfriend, Laura (Iben Hjejle), Rob Gordon (John Cusack), the owner and manager of an elitist record store, Championship Vinyl, decides to revisit his Top 5 worst break-ups to figure out why women keep leaving him. Jack Black and Todd Louiso also star as Rob's strange employees.
Secret: I just realized today what the double entendre in the title referred to. I only got half of it before. Nick Hornby, who penned the bestseller on which this film is based, seems to really like double entendres (e.g. About a Boy). Also, he always seems to revel in creating these absolute asses as protagonists, and he can endear them to you. Genius. Staggering genius.
So, yes, Rob Gordon is not a good person. Well, not particularly good. But, as always, Cusack with his disarming charm combined with Hornby's original talent, and its adaptation for the screen by D.V. DeVincentis, Steve Pink, John Cusack, and Scott Rosenberg will win you over. Time and time again they cast their spell over you. In the film, as in life, it is the little things that get you. In fact, they just kill me. It's always the little things.
Of course, Championship Vinyl would be deathly boring without Black and Louiso to lend a hand. Black is his usual larger-than-life self (best in a supporting role, I feel), and Louiso's Dick has an inferiority complex to be reckoned with. Charm, again. All charm.
Oh yeah, Catherine Zeta-Jones, Bruce Springsteen, Lisa Bonet, Tim Robbins, Lili Taylor (who I love!), Sarah Gilbert, among others, all do their part to bring together this adventure into the mind of a music obsessed introspective nerd. Yes, when you love anything as much as Rob loves music, you are a bit of a nerd.
Stephen Frears' direction is as charming and active as the cast. I say active for it is the opposite of passive. He seems to get right in there with his characters, feeling and fighting and flirting along the way. Simple wonderful. He does it in all his movies, in fact, and quite the impressive list they do make (My Best Friend's Wedding, The Hi-Lo Country, and Dangerous Liaisons, just to name a few). I love that he does not restrict himself to any particular genre, and his eclectic nature gives power to his creations.
As Rob says, "it's not what you're like, it's what you like". I agree. Call it shallow if you want, but you will have to admit that you prefer similarities in people. You like that they like the same stuff as you (be it religion, movies, books, television, music, cooking, what have you) because it reinforces your feelings of self-worth and gives you something to talk about. So Rob is a bit of an ass. So what? This movie is all charm, and it will not fail to win you over.
Thursday, March 11, 2004
Days of Thunder (1990)
Outline: Tim Dolan (Randy Quaid) hires Harry Hogge (Robert Duvall) to build a stock car and train his new driver, Cole Trickle (Tom Cruise). After Cole and a fellow racer are in an accident, Cole meets a beautiful neurosurgeon (Nicole Kidman), who helps him deal with his fears and race again.
Can I just tell you that this movie is another one of my childhood favourites? There is nothing particularly special about it, but I love it. I think it must have been something my dad really liked, so I watched it with him a bunch of times.
It was directed by Tony Scott, so you can see my opinion of his direction in my review of True Romance. It's pretty by the book; nothing spectacular for an action movie. It's also a classic Jerry Bruckheimer production, with the focus on action rather than talk. I guess that makes sense as it is an action movie.
As for the Tom Cruise bit, the jury's still out. I know, I know, he's been making movies for more years than I have been alive (I think), but let's be honest: can he act? He makes these critically acclaimed movies like The Last Samurai and Vanilla Sky, but he often fails to win awards or even nominations for his performances in them. So what's his deal? Can he act, is it the roles he chooses, or what? Anybody?
Duvall's his ornery self; Kidman charms. They all do they part, and I have no cause to either complain or exclaim.
Yes, everyone should watch this movie. Luckily, you are spared having to watch cars make endless left turns for the most part, and that way you can still claim you know something about stock car racing.
Outline: Tim Dolan (Randy Quaid) hires Harry Hogge (Robert Duvall) to build a stock car and train his new driver, Cole Trickle (Tom Cruise). After Cole and a fellow racer are in an accident, Cole meets a beautiful neurosurgeon (Nicole Kidman), who helps him deal with his fears and race again.
Can I just tell you that this movie is another one of my childhood favourites? There is nothing particularly special about it, but I love it. I think it must have been something my dad really liked, so I watched it with him a bunch of times.
It was directed by Tony Scott, so you can see my opinion of his direction in my review of True Romance. It's pretty by the book; nothing spectacular for an action movie. It's also a classic Jerry Bruckheimer production, with the focus on action rather than talk. I guess that makes sense as it is an action movie.
As for the Tom Cruise bit, the jury's still out. I know, I know, he's been making movies for more years than I have been alive (I think), but let's be honest: can he act? He makes these critically acclaimed movies like The Last Samurai and Vanilla Sky, but he often fails to win awards or even nominations for his performances in them. So what's his deal? Can he act, is it the roles he chooses, or what? Anybody?
Duvall's his ornery self; Kidman charms. They all do they part, and I have no cause to either complain or exclaim.
Yes, everyone should watch this movie. Luckily, you are spared having to watch cars make endless left turns for the most part, and that way you can still claim you know something about stock car racing.
Wednesday, March 10, 2004
Dark City (1998)
Short: An amnesiac (Rufus Sewell) wakes up to find a dead body in his room. He receives a mysterious phone call from a man who claims to be his doctor (Kiefer Sutherland) and wants to help him. An inspector (William Hurt) tries to find the man with the help of his wife (Jennifer Connelly). And, of course, he is being chased by some scary men/little boy reminiscent of the Gentleman in the Buffy the Vampire Slayer episode "Hush".
Note: It was suggested that I add the year, so that is what 1998 means.
This film was considered visionary when it came out, and I must admit that it is pretty good. Don't get me wrong, the big reveal towards the end is a little stupid, but, if you overlook that, it's none too shabby.
My favourite part of entire production was the score by Trevor Jones. He has also scored other movies I enjoy such as Thirteen Days and Notting Hill, but neither of them were captivating like this score. So, so powerful. The final testament to that, of course, is my new-found desire to play it. Jones' bass infiltrated score is a force to be reckoned with.
Alex Proyas directed the film, and he is also credited with story and co-writer. Wow. The script and the story have their predictable points, but that does not negate their creativity and strength. Of course, they would quickly lose their power if it were not for the ominous cinematography of Dariusz Wolski. Smart, very smart.
Sutherland, as per usual, steals the show from Sewell. I have difficulty not seeing Sewell as a villain or anti-hero, but his performance is strong. He holds his own, to say the least. Satya Gumbert portrays Mr. Sleep, the scariest little kid. Why is it that evil kids are so much more frightening that evil adults?
Okay, that's all for now. I'm going to see if I can get my hands on that score.
Short: An amnesiac (Rufus Sewell) wakes up to find a dead body in his room. He receives a mysterious phone call from a man who claims to be his doctor (Kiefer Sutherland) and wants to help him. An inspector (William Hurt) tries to find the man with the help of his wife (Jennifer Connelly). And, of course, he is being chased by some scary men/little boy reminiscent of the Gentleman in the Buffy the Vampire Slayer episode "Hush".
Note: It was suggested that I add the year, so that is what 1998 means.
This film was considered visionary when it came out, and I must admit that it is pretty good. Don't get me wrong, the big reveal towards the end is a little stupid, but, if you overlook that, it's none too shabby.
My favourite part of entire production was the score by Trevor Jones. He has also scored other movies I enjoy such as Thirteen Days and Notting Hill, but neither of them were captivating like this score. So, so powerful. The final testament to that, of course, is my new-found desire to play it. Jones' bass infiltrated score is a force to be reckoned with.
Alex Proyas directed the film, and he is also credited with story and co-writer. Wow. The script and the story have their predictable points, but that does not negate their creativity and strength. Of course, they would quickly lose their power if it were not for the ominous cinematography of Dariusz Wolski. Smart, very smart.
Sutherland, as per usual, steals the show from Sewell. I have difficulty not seeing Sewell as a villain or anti-hero, but his performance is strong. He holds his own, to say the least. Satya Gumbert portrays Mr. Sleep, the scariest little kid. Why is it that evil kids are so much more frightening that evil adults?
Okay, that's all for now. I'm going to see if I can get my hands on that score.
Tuesday, March 09, 2004
With Honors
Premise: In a rush to photocopy his thesis after his computer crashes, Monty (Brendan Fraser) drops his thesis, and it falls into the hands of Simon (Joe Pesci), a homeless man doing his best impersonation of Walt Whitman. Simon blackmails Monty for food and shelter in exchange for pages of his thesis.
I won't lie to you, this film fostered my ideas of what university would be like for a good many years. Now, ten years after it came out, I am in university and a little bit jealous that things aren't quite like that . . . yet.
Of course, I still love the movie. It's one of those comedy dramas in that it starts out as a comedy, but, somewhere along the way, it turns into a drama (e.g. Pleasantville). And that is a tricky genre. Tricky because if the sentimentality of the drama is in any way forced, then it negates the comedy and, thus, the entire picture. Tricky, I say, tricky.
But, worry ye not, for it succeeds! Whoever the screenwriter is, their work is a gem. So what if Fraser and his love interest Moira Kelly don't have any chemistry! The main relationship is the one between Simon and Monty, and it sparkles. It's just how it should be, each using the other for what is missing, learning about themselves along the way. A nice warm fuzzy.
Besides, Patrick Dempsey as Everett and Josh Hamilton as Jeff are entertaining as the other roommates in this Ozzie and Harriet meets the Odd Couple household.
So, watch it with Kleenex. I always do.
Premise: In a rush to photocopy his thesis after his computer crashes, Monty (Brendan Fraser) drops his thesis, and it falls into the hands of Simon (Joe Pesci), a homeless man doing his best impersonation of Walt Whitman. Simon blackmails Monty for food and shelter in exchange for pages of his thesis.
I won't lie to you, this film fostered my ideas of what university would be like for a good many years. Now, ten years after it came out, I am in university and a little bit jealous that things aren't quite like that . . . yet.
Of course, I still love the movie. It's one of those comedy dramas in that it starts out as a comedy, but, somewhere along the way, it turns into a drama (e.g. Pleasantville). And that is a tricky genre. Tricky because if the sentimentality of the drama is in any way forced, then it negates the comedy and, thus, the entire picture. Tricky, I say, tricky.
But, worry ye not, for it succeeds! Whoever the screenwriter is, their work is a gem. So what if Fraser and his love interest Moira Kelly don't have any chemistry! The main relationship is the one between Simon and Monty, and it sparkles. It's just how it should be, each using the other for what is missing, learning about themselves along the way. A nice warm fuzzy.
Besides, Patrick Dempsey as Everett and Josh Hamilton as Jeff are entertaining as the other roommates in this Ozzie and Harriet meets the Odd Couple household.
So, watch it with Kleenex. I always do.
Monday, March 08, 2004
The Emperor's Club
Summary: Kevin Kline is a professor at an all boys school where he teaches the equivalent of ancient civilizations. He attempts to put on the right path a troubled new student, Sedgewick Bell (Emile Hirsch). The film revolves around a competition to become "Mr. Julius Caesar".
It is my opinion that most comedic actors get to a point in their career where they deeply desire to win a Oscar for acting in a dramatic role. Kevin Kline is one of these actors, which is why he is now appearing in films such as The Emperor's Club and Life as a House instead of A Fish Called Wanda (which, incidentally, did garner him an Academy award).
This is not always the best choice. I think Kline bristles with talent, but The Emperor's Club may not have been the right venue to showcase it. Critics, I'm sure, are wary of any teacher/student movie that falls closely along the lines of Dead Poets Society. I ask you, why aren't any of these teachers science teachers? Why can't a math teacher be inspirational?
Alright, I admit that this film is quite good. The end both pissed me off and warmed my heart. I would say that the overriding theme is greatness. Greatness is a difficult status to achieve, and it is based in the most unlikely of circumstances. You'll see what I mean.
Although Kline is the star, he has tough competition from his students. Hirsch just may be going somewhere, and the rest are charming and funny. You'll like the somewhat stereotypical lot.
Everything else is a bit by the numbers, but the direction gives us no reason to complain. Michael Hoffman is telling a simple story on a simple background, but he doesn't let that stop him from making a few jabs. He sows it together well.
So, I think you'll like it.
Summary: Kevin Kline is a professor at an all boys school where he teaches the equivalent of ancient civilizations. He attempts to put on the right path a troubled new student, Sedgewick Bell (Emile Hirsch). The film revolves around a competition to become "Mr. Julius Caesar".
It is my opinion that most comedic actors get to a point in their career where they deeply desire to win a Oscar for acting in a dramatic role. Kevin Kline is one of these actors, which is why he is now appearing in films such as The Emperor's Club and Life as a House instead of A Fish Called Wanda (which, incidentally, did garner him an Academy award).
This is not always the best choice. I think Kline bristles with talent, but The Emperor's Club may not have been the right venue to showcase it. Critics, I'm sure, are wary of any teacher/student movie that falls closely along the lines of Dead Poets Society. I ask you, why aren't any of these teachers science teachers? Why can't a math teacher be inspirational?
Alright, I admit that this film is quite good. The end both pissed me off and warmed my heart. I would say that the overriding theme is greatness. Greatness is a difficult status to achieve, and it is based in the most unlikely of circumstances. You'll see what I mean.
Although Kline is the star, he has tough competition from his students. Hirsch just may be going somewhere, and the rest are charming and funny. You'll like the somewhat stereotypical lot.
Everything else is a bit by the numbers, but the direction gives us no reason to complain. Michael Hoffman is telling a simple story on a simple background, but he doesn't let that stop him from making a few jabs. He sows it together well.
So, I think you'll like it.
Sunday, March 07, 2004
Young Guns
Plan: Fictional telling of how Billy the Kid (Emilio Estevez) became Billy the Kid and the Lincoln cattle wars.
This movie is awful. I'm not saying it's the worst movie I have ever seen, because it isn't by far, but because the plot is remarkably similar to Swiss cheese.
However, yay Brat pack! I like them almost as much as I love the Rat pack. If you know them like I do, you find yourself exclaiming in excitement as the opening credits roll by. Seriously, the credits made me giddy.
Often the events and language in the film are as loosely related to the time period as the score by Anthony Marinelli and Brian Banks. They choose, for some unknown reason, to use strange 80s techno. I never figured that one out, and it certainly doesn't lend any creditability to the story.
I rather enjoyed the performances of everyone who wasn't Emilio Estevez. I don't like him. I'm not saying I don't like his crazy character, but I get the impression that everyone else was carrying him. Why was he then cast in the lead? You'll have to ask director/producer Christopher Cain for the answer to that one.
Before you write this one off completely, it does have its moments. Things I found hilarious: 1) everyone drinks some paodi (?), 2) Doc keeps a low profile by yelling in the street, 3) no one seems to realize that Doc doesn't write anything, 4) Billy is afraid of pigs. Funny, funny stuff.
In the end, all I can say is that it is good for a larf.
Plan: Fictional telling of how Billy the Kid (Emilio Estevez) became Billy the Kid and the Lincoln cattle wars.
This movie is awful. I'm not saying it's the worst movie I have ever seen, because it isn't by far, but because the plot is remarkably similar to Swiss cheese.
However, yay Brat pack! I like them almost as much as I love the Rat pack. If you know them like I do, you find yourself exclaiming in excitement as the opening credits roll by. Seriously, the credits made me giddy.
Often the events and language in the film are as loosely related to the time period as the score by Anthony Marinelli and Brian Banks. They choose, for some unknown reason, to use strange 80s techno. I never figured that one out, and it certainly doesn't lend any creditability to the story.
I rather enjoyed the performances of everyone who wasn't Emilio Estevez. I don't like him. I'm not saying I don't like his crazy character, but I get the impression that everyone else was carrying him. Why was he then cast in the lead? You'll have to ask director/producer Christopher Cain for the answer to that one.
Before you write this one off completely, it does have its moments. Things I found hilarious: 1) everyone drinks some paodi (?), 2) Doc keeps a low profile by yelling in the street, 3) no one seems to realize that Doc doesn't write anything, 4) Billy is afraid of pigs. Funny, funny stuff.
In the end, all I can say is that it is good for a larf.
Saturday, March 06, 2004
Donnie Darko
Plot: Donnie's girlfriend (Jena Malone) tells him that his name sounds like he should be a comic book hero. And he is, in a way. A giant rabbit saves him from certain death, so Donnie feels compelled to do his biding, borrowing from Graham Greene along the way.
The movie belongs under the film noir section, should Blockbuster ever make one. The first time I ever saw it, I spent more time saying "what the hell!?!" then actually paying attention, but I got over that one.
Now, this movie isn't terribly good. But it does have me hooked. It stars Jake Gyllenhaal as Donnie, and, as you have read, I find him effective. Yes, he's effective because he never ceases to affect me. I think that's right.
What I find even more effective, though, are the smaller roles played by Drew Barrymore, Noah Wyle, and Patrick Swayze. Barrymore and Wyle as his English and Science teachers, respectively, recognize that power in Donnie and want him to succeed. I don't know exactly what I mean by that. They just . . . believe in him. Not in his innate goodness or his leadership abilities, nothing like that. They believe in him. In flesh and blood.
As for Richard Kelly, who wrote and directed this masterpiece of depression, I've never seen anything else by him. In fact, I've never even heard of anything else he's done. He did this movie for only $9000, so I'd have to fathom a guess that he's devoted to his craft. I admire that about him if it proves to be true.
So, should you watch this film? Why not. You don't need me to tell you these things. It's about time travel, it's about adolescence, and it's about what you need to give up in order to grow up.
Plot: Donnie's girlfriend (Jena Malone) tells him that his name sounds like he should be a comic book hero. And he is, in a way. A giant rabbit saves him from certain death, so Donnie feels compelled to do his biding, borrowing from Graham Greene along the way.
The movie belongs under the film noir section, should Blockbuster ever make one. The first time I ever saw it, I spent more time saying "what the hell!?!" then actually paying attention, but I got over that one.
Now, this movie isn't terribly good. But it does have me hooked. It stars Jake Gyllenhaal as Donnie, and, as you have read, I find him effective. Yes, he's effective because he never ceases to affect me. I think that's right.
What I find even more effective, though, are the smaller roles played by Drew Barrymore, Noah Wyle, and Patrick Swayze. Barrymore and Wyle as his English and Science teachers, respectively, recognize that power in Donnie and want him to succeed. I don't know exactly what I mean by that. They just . . . believe in him. Not in his innate goodness or his leadership abilities, nothing like that. They believe in him. In flesh and blood.
As for Richard Kelly, who wrote and directed this masterpiece of depression, I've never seen anything else by him. In fact, I've never even heard of anything else he's done. He did this movie for only $9000, so I'd have to fathom a guess that he's devoted to his craft. I admire that about him if it proves to be true.
So, should you watch this film? Why not. You don't need me to tell you these things. It's about time travel, it's about adolescence, and it's about what you need to give up in order to grow up.
Friday, March 05, 2004
The Prince of Egypt
Brief: It's the story of Moses? I'm not really sure what I could write here that would make you know something about the story that you don't already now. Oh, his wife gets a name and a character. It also focuses on the most part on the relationship between Moses and his "brother" Rameses.
April's first cartoon review! At least I think it is. It's definitely my favourite.
The film is so good. Powerful and beautiful. I have no qualms with the way the Biblical material is presented as I do not feel that they stray far from the original story. In this case, when Moses murders the Egyptian, it was an accident. That kind of change makes sense because cartoons are generally geared for a younger audience.
Val Kilmer's voice lends the grandeur and trepidation necessary to Moses. Ralph Fiennes is brilliant as Rameses, giving him a superiority complex as long as the Nile.
As always, cartoons are only as good as their songs, and these ones are awesome. From the opening passionate plea of "Deliver Us" to the quiet success of the crossing of the Red Sea, the movie takes you on an emotional roller coaster through its score.
Well, all I can tell you is that this movie always makes me cry. Yes, you could argue that Sylvan Learning Centre commercials also make me cry, but this is different. This is about the passion of our God to save us from this world that seeks to oppress us. Now, my sister thought that her "Lord wouldn't have been so showy" in response to the parting of the Red Sea, but I'll let you decide for yourself. I think it is an appropriate time for wonder and awe.
Brief: It's the story of Moses? I'm not really sure what I could write here that would make you know something about the story that you don't already now. Oh, his wife gets a name and a character. It also focuses on the most part on the relationship between Moses and his "brother" Rameses.
April's first cartoon review! At least I think it is. It's definitely my favourite.
The film is so good. Powerful and beautiful. I have no qualms with the way the Biblical material is presented as I do not feel that they stray far from the original story. In this case, when Moses murders the Egyptian, it was an accident. That kind of change makes sense because cartoons are generally geared for a younger audience.
Val Kilmer's voice lends the grandeur and trepidation necessary to Moses. Ralph Fiennes is brilliant as Rameses, giving him a superiority complex as long as the Nile.
As always, cartoons are only as good as their songs, and these ones are awesome. From the opening passionate plea of "Deliver Us" to the quiet success of the crossing of the Red Sea, the movie takes you on an emotional roller coaster through its score.
Well, all I can tell you is that this movie always makes me cry. Yes, you could argue that Sylvan Learning Centre commercials also make me cry, but this is different. This is about the passion of our God to save us from this world that seeks to oppress us. Now, my sister thought that her "Lord wouldn't have been so showy" in response to the parting of the Red Sea, but I'll let you decide for yourself. I think it is an appropriate time for wonder and awe.
Thursday, March 04, 2004
The Good Girl
Short: A woman (Jennifer Aniston) who is bored with her life and her stoned husband (John C. Reilly) has an affair with a strange younger co-worker (Jake Gyllenhaal).
Now, I don't know about you, but, when I am bored, I go have an affair with a slightly psychotic younger man. Okay, so the point I was trying to make was that the actions of the characters are questionable. I've never been in the positions they are in, so perhaps they would seem more reasonable to me if I had been.
The film gives Aniston the opportunity to prove that she can handle something beyond Friends. Previous attempts such as Picture Perfect suggested that she couldn't, but, somehow, she pulls through this one to a fairly impressive performance. Her Justine is as naive as she is manipulative, and she balances both with a quiet introspective glaze over her eyes. I'm not ready to bet the farm on Aniston just yet, but she does have something to her.
As always, Gyllenhaal dives head first into his character, providing a powerful performance for Aniston to steady herself against. Gyllenhaal, with the exception of Bubble Boy, excels in the role of a youth that has been "put upon" in some way or another. I can't wait to see what he does as he continues to age.
The director, Michael Arteta, made a name for himself directing episodes of shows such as Freaks and Geeks and Six Feet Under. I am a fan of both, and he does pretty much the same thing with the same sort of material that writer Mike White gives him.
The movie is darkly focused on the perceived emptiness of people's lives. It contains no redeeming message of hope at the end, which could be considered a blessing or a downfall. You decide.
Short: A woman (Jennifer Aniston) who is bored with her life and her stoned husband (John C. Reilly) has an affair with a strange younger co-worker (Jake Gyllenhaal).
Now, I don't know about you, but, when I am bored, I go have an affair with a slightly psychotic younger man. Okay, so the point I was trying to make was that the actions of the characters are questionable. I've never been in the positions they are in, so perhaps they would seem more reasonable to me if I had been.
The film gives Aniston the opportunity to prove that she can handle something beyond Friends. Previous attempts such as Picture Perfect suggested that she couldn't, but, somehow, she pulls through this one to a fairly impressive performance. Her Justine is as naive as she is manipulative, and she balances both with a quiet introspective glaze over her eyes. I'm not ready to bet the farm on Aniston just yet, but she does have something to her.
As always, Gyllenhaal dives head first into his character, providing a powerful performance for Aniston to steady herself against. Gyllenhaal, with the exception of Bubble Boy, excels in the role of a youth that has been "put upon" in some way or another. I can't wait to see what he does as he continues to age.
The director, Michael Arteta, made a name for himself directing episodes of shows such as Freaks and Geeks and Six Feet Under. I am a fan of both, and he does pretty much the same thing with the same sort of material that writer Mike White gives him.
The movie is darkly focused on the perceived emptiness of people's lives. It contains no redeeming message of hope at the end, which could be considered a blessing or a downfall. You decide.
Wednesday, March 03, 2004
Fight Club
Summary: A man's empty life explodes along with his clever little condo. Alright, I should back this up.
An insomniac man joins some support groups, which help him sleep. He meets a crazy woman, and a guy who makes soap. He moves in with the guy who makes soap after his apartment explodes. Also, the soap guy and he start fighting each other, and then other guys join. Eventually, and inevitably, it gets out of control.
See, the film is told entirely from the point of view of the narrator (Ed Norton), surprise!, and the viewer only gets to know what he knows. It's really quite sad at the beginning because he hates his job, his life, he can't sleep - he has no escape. But then they come up with Fight Club.
As for the woman, Marla, I don't even know where to begin to describe her parasitic, self-absorbed, heroin-chic character. Actually, that's a pretty good description. She's portrayed by Helena Bonham Carter, who I really don't care for, but I cannot continue to pretend that she has no talent. Darn.
Of course, the best part of the film is the wild chemistry between Brad Pitt and Norton, two of today's best leading men. I like that both of them tend to lean towards these sorts of roles rather than the run of the mill romantic comedy that many a leading man gets trapped in. To be honest, romantic comedy done often and done well is a level rarely achieved. Pitt relishes his insane, cruel, and twisted character. Norton, as usual, excels as a neurotic yes-man.
Overall, the movie is best when you recognize just how hilarious it all is. All of it. If you get caught up in revolting against the violence, the sexuality, or the amorality of the characters, then you don't get it. David Fincher, the director, and Jim Uhls, the screenwriter, don't want you to go out and start fight clubs of your own or destroy corporate art. Movies don't inspire such desires; movies give you ideas on how to bring your desires to fruition.
Summary: A man's empty life explodes along with his clever little condo. Alright, I should back this up.
An insomniac man joins some support groups, which help him sleep. He meets a crazy woman, and a guy who makes soap. He moves in with the guy who makes soap after his apartment explodes. Also, the soap guy and he start fighting each other, and then other guys join. Eventually, and inevitably, it gets out of control.
See, the film is told entirely from the point of view of the narrator (Ed Norton), surprise!, and the viewer only gets to know what he knows. It's really quite sad at the beginning because he hates his job, his life, he can't sleep - he has no escape. But then they come up with Fight Club.
As for the woman, Marla, I don't even know where to begin to describe her parasitic, self-absorbed, heroin-chic character. Actually, that's a pretty good description. She's portrayed by Helena Bonham Carter, who I really don't care for, but I cannot continue to pretend that she has no talent. Darn.
Of course, the best part of the film is the wild chemistry between Brad Pitt and Norton, two of today's best leading men. I like that both of them tend to lean towards these sorts of roles rather than the run of the mill romantic comedy that many a leading man gets trapped in. To be honest, romantic comedy done often and done well is a level rarely achieved. Pitt relishes his insane, cruel, and twisted character. Norton, as usual, excels as a neurotic yes-man.
Overall, the movie is best when you recognize just how hilarious it all is. All of it. If you get caught up in revolting against the violence, the sexuality, or the amorality of the characters, then you don't get it. David Fincher, the director, and Jim Uhls, the screenwriter, don't want you to go out and start fight clubs of your own or destroy corporate art. Movies don't inspire such desires; movies give you ideas on how to bring your desires to fruition.
Tuesday, March 02, 2004
The Usual Suspects
Plot: Customs Agent David Kujan (Chazz Palminteri) forces Verbal Kint (Kevin Spacey) to tell him when and how there came to be a bloodbath at Long Island harbour. Verbal's story revolves around five criminals (Gabriel Byrne, Stephen Baldwin, Beinico Del Toro, Kevin Pollack, and Spacey) who come together for the heist of a lifetime, guided by the invisible hand of the bogeyman of criminals, Keyser Soze.
Actually, Verbal claims from the beginning that it was all Keyser Soze, and Kujan dares him to prove it.
Whoa, this is one of the best movies I have ever seen. It may come as a shock to those familiar with my period-piece, Shakespeare loving self, but I rather enjoy a good action flick. The problem is that the good ones are few and far between, so I don't watch them as often as would be necessary to demonstrate this preference. So it goes.
Bryan Singer's slick direction pulls taut Christopher McQuarrie's twist-filled script. Spacey's quietly detailed narration provides the perfect backdrop for the explosive film noir that follows. In fact, Spacey won a best supporting actor Oscar for his performance, and McQuarrie one for his original script.
The rest of the cast slow-burn their way to the intensity of the harbour scene. Byrne and Palminteri are among my favourite performers, and they shine in this gritty medium. Pollack, Baldwin, and Del Toro provide some comedic relief, perhaps not as overtly as one would like. However, the simple joy that comes from catching a quick turn of phrase or an off-the-wall comment is found in abundance with these three.
Stylish and smooth, this movie will keep you guessing until the last word is spoken. A quote from the film to help you understand (and a true one for real life): "The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was to convince the world that he didn't exist."
Plot: Customs Agent David Kujan (Chazz Palminteri) forces Verbal Kint (Kevin Spacey) to tell him when and how there came to be a bloodbath at Long Island harbour. Verbal's story revolves around five criminals (Gabriel Byrne, Stephen Baldwin, Beinico Del Toro, Kevin Pollack, and Spacey) who come together for the heist of a lifetime, guided by the invisible hand of the bogeyman of criminals, Keyser Soze.
Actually, Verbal claims from the beginning that it was all Keyser Soze, and Kujan dares him to prove it.
Whoa, this is one of the best movies I have ever seen. It may come as a shock to those familiar with my period-piece, Shakespeare loving self, but I rather enjoy a good action flick. The problem is that the good ones are few and far between, so I don't watch them as often as would be necessary to demonstrate this preference. So it goes.
Bryan Singer's slick direction pulls taut Christopher McQuarrie's twist-filled script. Spacey's quietly detailed narration provides the perfect backdrop for the explosive film noir that follows. In fact, Spacey won a best supporting actor Oscar for his performance, and McQuarrie one for his original script.
The rest of the cast slow-burn their way to the intensity of the harbour scene. Byrne and Palminteri are among my favourite performers, and they shine in this gritty medium. Pollack, Baldwin, and Del Toro provide some comedic relief, perhaps not as overtly as one would like. However, the simple joy that comes from catching a quick turn of phrase or an off-the-wall comment is found in abundance with these three.
Stylish and smooth, this movie will keep you guessing until the last word is spoken. A quote from the film to help you understand (and a true one for real life): "The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was to convince the world that he didn't exist."
Monday, March 01, 2004
Breakfast at Tiffany's
Blake Edwards received one of those life time achievement awards at the Oscars last night, so I thought I would review one of this films as a tribute.
Premise: A socialite (Audrey Hepburn) makes friends with a writer (George Peppard) who lives upstairs. He helps her out when she gets mixed up in the mob, and she helps him stop being a "kept man".
Breakfast at Tiffany's is the definitive romantic comedy. I don't know if you'll find it in the romantic comedy section, but that is where I feel it belongs. George Axelrod's take on Truman Capote's novel is sharp, smart, and sexy. He breathes life into what could have been two-dimensional characters in the wild world of the swinging sixties.
As for Edwards' direction, it is flawless and seamless. I know that seems extraordinarily high praise, but the director is who ties everything together to give it meaning, and he proves his prowess with this film. Hepburn is perfectly charming under his direction, and Peppard actually manages to not seem dull in her luminous presence.
Also, Buddy Ebsen is great in his bit part. As for Mickey Rooney, well, we'll just have to excuse the overt racism there because it was 1963.
Come to think of it, Axelrod and Ebsen also passed away last year. The lights in the Hollywood sign are beginning to dim. Good night, sweet princes of the silver screen's golden era.
Blake Edwards received one of those life time achievement awards at the Oscars last night, so I thought I would review one of this films as a tribute.
Premise: A socialite (Audrey Hepburn) makes friends with a writer (George Peppard) who lives upstairs. He helps her out when she gets mixed up in the mob, and she helps him stop being a "kept man".
Breakfast at Tiffany's is the definitive romantic comedy. I don't know if you'll find it in the romantic comedy section, but that is where I feel it belongs. George Axelrod's take on Truman Capote's novel is sharp, smart, and sexy. He breathes life into what could have been two-dimensional characters in the wild world of the swinging sixties.
As for Edwards' direction, it is flawless and seamless. I know that seems extraordinarily high praise, but the director is who ties everything together to give it meaning, and he proves his prowess with this film. Hepburn is perfectly charming under his direction, and Peppard actually manages to not seem dull in her luminous presence.
Also, Buddy Ebsen is great in his bit part. As for Mickey Rooney, well, we'll just have to excuse the overt racism there because it was 1963.
Come to think of it, Axelrod and Ebsen also passed away last year. The lights in the Hollywood sign are beginning to dim. Good night, sweet princes of the silver screen's golden era.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)