*batteries not included (1987)
Brief: Five tenants of a building about to be condemned are visited by aliens who fix things and help them to save their building.
Largely exciting due to Hume Cronyn and Jessica Tandy as Frank and Faye Riley, who are residents of the building as well as proprietors of the café downstairs.
Can you really beat those two? I don’t think so. I love them both, and, in the grand scheme of things being unfair, they have both passed away.
As such, I treat this more as a recommendation than a review.
This movie is truly one of the best children’s movies I have ever seen. Sure, there are no actual kids in it, and there is some violence and some swears. Even so, a fantastic kid’s movie.
Made better if you watch it with someone who will react like a child would, which I think is the best way to watch movies anyway.
I mean, I don’t believe in aliens, and they don’t particularly interest me in terms of movie subjects.
The aliens in this case are actually composed of metal parts that they steal from the residents of the apartments and use to build themselves and their offspring. It’s quite an impressive sight.
In this movie’s case, obviously, you are better off suspending reality, at least some of it. I think that’s true of any movie: You need to suspend reality in order to find a home for it.
Meanwhile, I finally watched The Shawshank Redemption. Remember how pissed off I have been at Thomas Newman from continuously recycling his score from American Beauty? Turns out it’s actually his score from Shawshank. I’m disgusted.
Other than that, a very heart-warming movie. Just don’t do a school project about it.
Saturday, July 31, 2004
Friday, July 30, 2004
Attila (2001)
Short: A romanticized version of the story of Attila the Hun (Gerard Butler), focusing on both his relationships with his older brother, Bleda (Tommy Flanagan); a Roman general, Flavius Aetius (Powers Boothe); and the love of his life, N’Kara (Simmone Mackinnon), as he comes to terms with a prophecy that claims he will one day rule the world.
So, basically, the same epic story we see in every movie set around the waning years of the Roman Empire/the Dark Ages. I never thought I would even think such a thing.
If this movie has one good thing going for it, it’s its author, Robert Cochran. Where do I know Cochran’s name from? He’s a writer for 24.
If you haven’t watched the show, then shame on you. It’s the most intense show on television today, as well as one of the sharpest and deepest. It never, for even a second, is boring. In fact, there are usually at least three things going on at once, and your head starts spinning with the end of every episode.
Cochran brings that same kind of intensity to a story known only too well. Without letting us get bogged down in the pesky details (will Attila ever attack Rome? When?), Cochran shows the pressure Attila put on himself and the great leader he came to be from underneath his own shadow.
Of course, the end is anti-climatic, and I’m not sure that it was historically accurate. Regardless, there is something poetic about it.
I think what I liked best, though, was that Attila wasn’t obsessed with immortality. That seems to be a theme in the epic blockbusters of late, and it was refreshing to be rid of it for a moment.
Dock Lowry, the director, has made a career directing made-for-TV movies. I don’t know how one makes a career out of that, but he has. Frankly, that’s not the right thing to do.
Why? Because he makes the whole thing feel like a made-for-TV movie. I mean, it is one, but it doesn’t have to feel that way. You don’t need to feel budgetary constraints. You don’t need to feel that lack of luxury, which leads to lack of magic.
This is not a story line that needs to feel entirely realistic. I wanted to feel steeped in history and mysticism, but Lowry cut me short.
Butler is a bright spot in all of this madness. Lowry should have been reined him in a bit, but he’s still convincing. I read some speculation (http://edition.cnn.com/2004/SHOWBIZ/Movies/07/28/brosnan.bond.ap/index.html) the other day about him as the next Bond, and, as much as you know I love many other candidates on the list, I think he’s the best choice.
In fact, some of the other ideas there are just plain laughable. I mean, Hugh Grant? Oh, okay. Absolutely. Jude Law? Too feminine. As much as you know I find Clive Owen and Ioan Gruffudd sexy, those don’t seem like the right answers.
And don’t even get me started about the Heath Ledger idea. Oh, my, no.
Butler, second only to Owen in this respect, captures that “devil may care” attitude that Connery immortalized as one of the central characteristics of Bond. Plus, he would carry on the grand tradition of a Scottish Bond, which very much appeals to me.
Alright, enough of that tangent. I think everyone should post a comment of their pick. I’d love to debate it with y’all.
An important note when considering picking up the Attila DVD for your viewing pleasure: it’s a three parter, making the actual running time (without commercials) 177 minutes. I watched it all in one go, but you might want to consider breaking it up.
Short: A romanticized version of the story of Attila the Hun (Gerard Butler), focusing on both his relationships with his older brother, Bleda (Tommy Flanagan); a Roman general, Flavius Aetius (Powers Boothe); and the love of his life, N’Kara (Simmone Mackinnon), as he comes to terms with a prophecy that claims he will one day rule the world.
So, basically, the same epic story we see in every movie set around the waning years of the Roman Empire/the Dark Ages. I never thought I would even think such a thing.
If this movie has one good thing going for it, it’s its author, Robert Cochran. Where do I know Cochran’s name from? He’s a writer for 24.
If you haven’t watched the show, then shame on you. It’s the most intense show on television today, as well as one of the sharpest and deepest. It never, for even a second, is boring. In fact, there are usually at least three things going on at once, and your head starts spinning with the end of every episode.
Cochran brings that same kind of intensity to a story known only too well. Without letting us get bogged down in the pesky details (will Attila ever attack Rome? When?), Cochran shows the pressure Attila put on himself and the great leader he came to be from underneath his own shadow.
Of course, the end is anti-climatic, and I’m not sure that it was historically accurate. Regardless, there is something poetic about it.
I think what I liked best, though, was that Attila wasn’t obsessed with immortality. That seems to be a theme in the epic blockbusters of late, and it was refreshing to be rid of it for a moment.
Dock Lowry, the director, has made a career directing made-for-TV movies. I don’t know how one makes a career out of that, but he has. Frankly, that’s not the right thing to do.
Why? Because he makes the whole thing feel like a made-for-TV movie. I mean, it is one, but it doesn’t have to feel that way. You don’t need to feel budgetary constraints. You don’t need to feel that lack of luxury, which leads to lack of magic.
This is not a story line that needs to feel entirely realistic. I wanted to feel steeped in history and mysticism, but Lowry cut me short.
Butler is a bright spot in all of this madness. Lowry should have been reined him in a bit, but he’s still convincing. I read some speculation (http://edition.cnn.com/2004/SHOWBIZ/Movies/07/28/brosnan.bond.ap/index.html) the other day about him as the next Bond, and, as much as you know I love many other candidates on the list, I think he’s the best choice.
In fact, some of the other ideas there are just plain laughable. I mean, Hugh Grant? Oh, okay. Absolutely. Jude Law? Too feminine. As much as you know I find Clive Owen and Ioan Gruffudd sexy, those don’t seem like the right answers.
And don’t even get me started about the Heath Ledger idea. Oh, my, no.
Butler, second only to Owen in this respect, captures that “devil may care” attitude that Connery immortalized as one of the central characteristics of Bond. Plus, he would carry on the grand tradition of a Scottish Bond, which very much appeals to me.
Alright, enough of that tangent. I think everyone should post a comment of their pick. I’d love to debate it with y’all.
An important note when considering picking up the Attila DVD for your viewing pleasure: it’s a three parter, making the actual running time (without commercials) 177 minutes. I watched it all in one go, but you might want to consider breaking it up.
Tuesday, July 27, 2004
The Man Who Cried (2000)
Plan: While on her way to America to locate her father, Suzie (Christina Ricci) joins a dance troupe in Paris. She rooms with a fellow Russian, Lola (Cate Blanchett), who falls for an opera singer, Dante (John Turturro). Dante gets them jobs in his opera, where Suzie meets a gypsy, Cesar (Johnny Depp). Importantly, it’s shortly before Germany invades Poland, and Dante is indeed Italian.
I swear, I don’t look for movies from that year. I think they’ve learned to seek me out.
In any case, I wondered for a good few days what I actually thought of this movie. I wasn’t really sure who I felt about it, in fact.
Then I remembered that while I was watching, my roommate came in at a certain point and said, “So that’s the man who cried!”
And I realized that I had completely stopped trying to figure out the title. Can you imagine? I thought about it for maybe 20 minutes, and then I didn’t think about.
That, I feel, is a telling sign of Sally Potter’s (writer/director) prowess as a filmmaker. She relies heavily on music, light, and facial expressions to tell the story. There’s something very natural about that.
There’s also something very natural about Ricci up the screen. She beautiful, and talent just seems to slowly flow out of her.
If anything was unnatural in this movie, it was the relationship between Suzie and Cesar. While the chemistry between Depp and Ricci was palpable, I just couldn’t wrap my mind around a couple that never said a word to each other. Were they supposed to be psychically connected? Was I to assume that they talked while the camera wasn’t on them?
I don’t know, and I didn’t like it.
As always, Blanchett and Turturro were fantastic. My opinion of Turturro’s really changed over the past few months. The movies I see him in, the more I like him. He has this ability to blend all sorts of aspects together in a most impressive way. It’s really powerful.
I can’t say I recommend this movie, though. It’s incredibly beautiful to watch. Thank you, Sacha Vierny (cinematographer).
But that’s not enough to get my full vote. Something’s holding me back. Not quite sure what, but it is there, a lagging doubt in the back of my mind.
Plan: While on her way to America to locate her father, Suzie (Christina Ricci) joins a dance troupe in Paris. She rooms with a fellow Russian, Lola (Cate Blanchett), who falls for an opera singer, Dante (John Turturro). Dante gets them jobs in his opera, where Suzie meets a gypsy, Cesar (Johnny Depp). Importantly, it’s shortly before Germany invades Poland, and Dante is indeed Italian.
I swear, I don’t look for movies from that year. I think they’ve learned to seek me out.
In any case, I wondered for a good few days what I actually thought of this movie. I wasn’t really sure who I felt about it, in fact.
Then I remembered that while I was watching, my roommate came in at a certain point and said, “So that’s the man who cried!”
And I realized that I had completely stopped trying to figure out the title. Can you imagine? I thought about it for maybe 20 minutes, and then I didn’t think about.
That, I feel, is a telling sign of Sally Potter’s (writer/director) prowess as a filmmaker. She relies heavily on music, light, and facial expressions to tell the story. There’s something very natural about that.
There’s also something very natural about Ricci up the screen. She beautiful, and talent just seems to slowly flow out of her.
If anything was unnatural in this movie, it was the relationship between Suzie and Cesar. While the chemistry between Depp and Ricci was palpable, I just couldn’t wrap my mind around a couple that never said a word to each other. Were they supposed to be psychically connected? Was I to assume that they talked while the camera wasn’t on them?
I don’t know, and I didn’t like it.
As always, Blanchett and Turturro were fantastic. My opinion of Turturro’s really changed over the past few months. The movies I see him in, the more I like him. He has this ability to blend all sorts of aspects together in a most impressive way. It’s really powerful.
I can’t say I recommend this movie, though. It’s incredibly beautiful to watch. Thank you, Sacha Vierny (cinematographer).
But that’s not enough to get my full vote. Something’s holding me back. Not quite sure what, but it is there, a lagging doubt in the back of my mind.
Monday, July 26, 2004
Men with Brooms (2002)
Summary: After their ex-coach dies, Chris Cutter (Paul Gross), James Lennox (Peter Outerbridge), Eddie Strombeck (Jed Rees), and Neil Bucyk (James Allodi) reunite to compete for the Golden Broom, a competition that they withdrew from after Chris disappeared on his wedding day to the coach’s eldest daughter, Julie (Michelle Nolden). Also, they have personal lives.
I’d get into about that other side of the story, but, frankly, a movie about curling is hilarious in and of itself.
And that’s just what this movie is. Hilarious. Hilariously in love with curling. Hilariously in love with Canada. Hilariously in love with itself (not in a conceited way)
Plus, there are lots of jokes about beavers. Those are also funny in and of themselves to anyone who is proud to be a Canadian.
Alright, enough hyperbole about the humour of this comical movie. You get it: it’s funny.
I attribute most of that to Gross (who also co-wrote and directed). Gross, in case you’ve never noticed, is a very funny man. I admit that he also makes one hell of a Hamlet, proving he’s just as adept with drama. But comedy’s really where it’s at for him. There’s a sly, knowing, mischievous little boy in those twinkling eyes, and you are so easily engulfed by all of it.
I didn’t mention it earlier, but his romantic interest is portrayed by Molly Parker, who I think is a highly under appreciated actress. Any woman who can sport that many freckles and never come across as girly/silly/childish is one talented lady in my books.
Okay, I’ll admit that the movie suffers from clichés and an obvious plot. Also, making Parker’s character a recovering alcoholic seems a loose end that’s never fully explored or given the gravity a subplot like that usually requires.
On the other, it’s nice for once to see an alcoholic character who isn’t reduced to an after-school-special stereotype. The only person she seems to hurt, in this case, is herself.
Regardless, the movie is pure geeky Canadiana at its best. I was initially wary of the film (because it’s about curling), but what I was wary of is exactly what makes it so great.
Side bar:
“Or maybe fiction is exactly where we expect to find the certainties that elude us in our everyday lives. With fiction, we can mold an imagined world so that it makes sense. We can't do the same with reality.”
Want more? Click: http://www.cbc.ca/news/viewpoint/vp_browndan/20040722.html
And for fun: http://www.cbc.ca/arts/features/scots_advertising/
Summary: After their ex-coach dies, Chris Cutter (Paul Gross), James Lennox (Peter Outerbridge), Eddie Strombeck (Jed Rees), and Neil Bucyk (James Allodi) reunite to compete for the Golden Broom, a competition that they withdrew from after Chris disappeared on his wedding day to the coach’s eldest daughter, Julie (Michelle Nolden). Also, they have personal lives.
I’d get into about that other side of the story, but, frankly, a movie about curling is hilarious in and of itself.
And that’s just what this movie is. Hilarious. Hilariously in love with curling. Hilariously in love with Canada. Hilariously in love with itself (not in a conceited way)
Plus, there are lots of jokes about beavers. Those are also funny in and of themselves to anyone who is proud to be a Canadian.
Alright, enough hyperbole about the humour of this comical movie. You get it: it’s funny.
I attribute most of that to Gross (who also co-wrote and directed). Gross, in case you’ve never noticed, is a very funny man. I admit that he also makes one hell of a Hamlet, proving he’s just as adept with drama. But comedy’s really where it’s at for him. There’s a sly, knowing, mischievous little boy in those twinkling eyes, and you are so easily engulfed by all of it.
I didn’t mention it earlier, but his romantic interest is portrayed by Molly Parker, who I think is a highly under appreciated actress. Any woman who can sport that many freckles and never come across as girly/silly/childish is one talented lady in my books.
Okay, I’ll admit that the movie suffers from clichés and an obvious plot. Also, making Parker’s character a recovering alcoholic seems a loose end that’s never fully explored or given the gravity a subplot like that usually requires.
On the other, it’s nice for once to see an alcoholic character who isn’t reduced to an after-school-special stereotype. The only person she seems to hurt, in this case, is herself.
Regardless, the movie is pure geeky Canadiana at its best. I was initially wary of the film (because it’s about curling), but what I was wary of is exactly what makes it so great.
Side bar:
“Or maybe fiction is exactly where we expect to find the certainties that elude us in our everyday lives. With fiction, we can mold an imagined world so that it makes sense. We can't do the same with reality.”
Want more? Click: http://www.cbc.ca/news/viewpoint/vp_browndan/20040722.html
And for fun: http://www.cbc.ca/arts/features/scots_advertising/
Sunday, July 25, 2004
Valmont (1989)
Idea: As you might have surmised, yet another adaptation of Les liasons dangereuses. In this case, we see Colin Firth as the title character; Annette Benning as the scheming, envious Merteuil; Fairuza Balk as the virtuous but naïve Cecile; Meg Tilley as the similar but married Tourvel; and Henry Thomas as the gallant but misguided Danceny.
Inasmuch as Milos Forman (director, Amadeus) tells a good story, this is not the version I would recommend to anyone looking for a tale of passion, seduction, and betrayal.
For that is what Les liasons dangereuses is, let us not forget. When I watch it, I expect to see Valmont as the epitome of the rake and Merteuil as, frankly, a “cautionary tale” of what power can “do to a woman.”
Caution! Spoilers Ahead!
What I can say that I liked best about this version is that Valmont never falls in love with anyone other than Merteuil. He never, for even a second, repents of his ways. That, I believe, is who Valmont truly is.
So, thank you, Jean-Claude Carriere, Milos Forman, and Jan Novak. Unfortunately, you missed the boat on every other aspect.
My main concern with this movie is the casting. If this movie were made today with the same actors, I would probably gobble it up. But it wasn’t, and I didn’t.
Instead, I found myself wondering why Firth was such a nice rake and why he hadn’t given anyone one of his “looks”. Perhaps he had yet to perfect them. I also wondered why all these French people had British accents, but that’s a road I’ve already covered.
And Benning. While truly a talented actress today, her Merteuil lacks the sexuality and definition that, say, Glenn Close brought to the character. Instead, she flounders around for most of the movie, unsure, until she finally decides to have Valmont killed. Perhaps that was her take on the character.
A weak take in my opinion. Merteuil was so frightening to men and yet so desirable because she never backed down. Without that quality, Merteuil is simply a slut.
And don’t even get me started on the rape mythology perpetuated by this story.
Idea: As you might have surmised, yet another adaptation of Les liasons dangereuses. In this case, we see Colin Firth as the title character; Annette Benning as the scheming, envious Merteuil; Fairuza Balk as the virtuous but naïve Cecile; Meg Tilley as the similar but married Tourvel; and Henry Thomas as the gallant but misguided Danceny.
Inasmuch as Milos Forman (director, Amadeus) tells a good story, this is not the version I would recommend to anyone looking for a tale of passion, seduction, and betrayal.
For that is what Les liasons dangereuses is, let us not forget. When I watch it, I expect to see Valmont as the epitome of the rake and Merteuil as, frankly, a “cautionary tale” of what power can “do to a woman.”
Caution! Spoilers Ahead!
What I can say that I liked best about this version is that Valmont never falls in love with anyone other than Merteuil. He never, for even a second, repents of his ways. That, I believe, is who Valmont truly is.
So, thank you, Jean-Claude Carriere, Milos Forman, and Jan Novak. Unfortunately, you missed the boat on every other aspect.
My main concern with this movie is the casting. If this movie were made today with the same actors, I would probably gobble it up. But it wasn’t, and I didn’t.
Instead, I found myself wondering why Firth was such a nice rake and why he hadn’t given anyone one of his “looks”. Perhaps he had yet to perfect them. I also wondered why all these French people had British accents, but that’s a road I’ve already covered.
And Benning. While truly a talented actress today, her Merteuil lacks the sexuality and definition that, say, Glenn Close brought to the character. Instead, she flounders around for most of the movie, unsure, until she finally decides to have Valmont killed. Perhaps that was her take on the character.
A weak take in my opinion. Merteuil was so frightening to men and yet so desirable because she never backed down. Without that quality, Merteuil is simply a slut.
And don’t even get me started on the rape mythology perpetuated by this story.
Saturday, July 24, 2004
To End All Wars (2001)
Premise: True story of POWS in WWII would were forced to build a railroad through the Burmese jungle. More specifically, the true story of Ernest Gordon (Ciarán McMenamin), who started a university in their camp after he was captured with his entire Scottish regiment. He taught philosophy. His commander, Campbell (Robert Carlyle), resented Ernest’s efforts and focused on escape and/or overthrowing the camp instead. Ernest found inspiration and direction instead in Dusty (Mark Strong), a self-sacrificing idealist. Meanwhile, the sole American, a merchant marine named Reardon (Kiefer Sutherland), sought to make the situation as profitable as it could be for him.
Who is impressed at how long it has been since I watched/reviewed a Kiefer Sutherland movie? I said I was through, and I was.
Nonetheless, Carlyle is one of the greatest actors ever, and I heard this film was great. All in all, I felt I owed it to myself to see it.
And it did not disappoint. Not only is this one of the best war films I have ever seen, but I also believe it is the best Sutherland film I have ever seen.
Editor’s Note: when I say “best war film”, I mean the best film set during a war. I don’t know how it compares in terms of accuracy or realism about combat/POWs.
Carlyle is truly a chameleon. For all I make of Phillip Seymour Hoffman as one, I don’t believe he possesses the raw talent of Carlyle, the absolute ability to transform himself into anything. There are very few actors that are as powerful to watch.
McMenamin, despite being Irish rather than Scottish, holds his own against some overwhelming co-stars and does a pretty good Scottish accent while he’s at it. He’s got these crazy coloured eyes that are so expressive, you can barely take your eyes off them.
Why, oh why, hasn’t Brian Godawa written anything else? I feel really ripped off knowing that fact. Slighted, even.
And David L. Cunningham (director), what an amazing voice you have – so strong, quiet, subdued.
This film will rip your heart right out of your chest. I don’t recall the last time I saw something so heartbreaking (minus the personal heartbreak of the King Arthur fiasco).
Please don’t misunderstand me. I wasn’t walking around with a mistaken idea of what life was like for POWs. The film will break your heart in a million different ways that have very little to do with their treatment.
It deals freedom and sacrifice in ways that you and I cannot even imagine.
Because it is true, I do imagine that we all need to see this film over and over again.
Premise: True story of POWS in WWII would were forced to build a railroad through the Burmese jungle. More specifically, the true story of Ernest Gordon (Ciarán McMenamin), who started a university in their camp after he was captured with his entire Scottish regiment. He taught philosophy. His commander, Campbell (Robert Carlyle), resented Ernest’s efforts and focused on escape and/or overthrowing the camp instead. Ernest found inspiration and direction instead in Dusty (Mark Strong), a self-sacrificing idealist. Meanwhile, the sole American, a merchant marine named Reardon (Kiefer Sutherland), sought to make the situation as profitable as it could be for him.
Who is impressed at how long it has been since I watched/reviewed a Kiefer Sutherland movie? I said I was through, and I was.
Nonetheless, Carlyle is one of the greatest actors ever, and I heard this film was great. All in all, I felt I owed it to myself to see it.
And it did not disappoint. Not only is this one of the best war films I have ever seen, but I also believe it is the best Sutherland film I have ever seen.
Editor’s Note: when I say “best war film”, I mean the best film set during a war. I don’t know how it compares in terms of accuracy or realism about combat/POWs.
Carlyle is truly a chameleon. For all I make of Phillip Seymour Hoffman as one, I don’t believe he possesses the raw talent of Carlyle, the absolute ability to transform himself into anything. There are very few actors that are as powerful to watch.
McMenamin, despite being Irish rather than Scottish, holds his own against some overwhelming co-stars and does a pretty good Scottish accent while he’s at it. He’s got these crazy coloured eyes that are so expressive, you can barely take your eyes off them.
Why, oh why, hasn’t Brian Godawa written anything else? I feel really ripped off knowing that fact. Slighted, even.
And David L. Cunningham (director), what an amazing voice you have – so strong, quiet, subdued.
This film will rip your heart right out of your chest. I don’t recall the last time I saw something so heartbreaking (minus the personal heartbreak of the King Arthur fiasco).
Please don’t misunderstand me. I wasn’t walking around with a mistaken idea of what life was like for POWs. The film will break your heart in a million different ways that have very little to do with their treatment.
It deals freedom and sacrifice in ways that you and I cannot even imagine.
Because it is true, I do imagine that we all need to see this film over and over again.
Thursday, July 22, 2004
Croupier (1998)
Summary: Against his better judgement, Jack (Clive Owen), an unemployed writer, takes the job his estranged father recommends: he becomes a croupier. He becomes more and more involved in casino life, stressing his relationship with his girlfriend Marion (Gina McKee). A beautiful South African punter, Jani (Alex Kingston), becomes involved with Jack outside of the casino and convinces him to help her rip the place off.
Quote from yours truly directly after the movie finished: “This movie’s PSYCHOTIC!”
That’s why I like to let movies settle before I write about them.
In all honest, one of the best movies I’ve seen in a while. It stars who I feel is one of Britain’s best leading men (and one of the sexiest), playing one of my favourite kinds of characters. I’m not entirely certain why, but I love amoral fictional characters. They’re never doing the right thing or the wrong thing – they just do whatever is best for them.
And I know I’m not alone in my passion for the amoral character. Given the incredible success of Pirates of the Caribbean: Curse of the Black Pearl and the Oscar nod for Depp, I know that plenty of people enjoy the amoral. Do you doubt that that is what Captain Jack Sparrow was?
When I went to see the movie in the theatre, a friend who accompanied me kept asking me which side he was on. I told the friend that he was on Jack Sparrow’s side. Tell me I’m wrong.
Owen does it with much more indifference here. His every action and reaction is so cold and removed – it’s magnetic. This is the role that gained Owen notoriety as an actor/leading man, and it’s no wonder. He’s a very subtle actor, and he makes his roles compelling in a way that a lesser actor would simply drown in them.
To be honest with you, I don’t get why people like McKee so much. I don’t think she’s that good of an actress, and I don’t find her pale, long face attractive. Maybe that’s just me, though.
Kingston, on the other hand, is a sexual dynamo. I never used to find her attractive until her character on er went to Hawaii, and she was suddenly in natural light and warm colours. She’s stunning, I think. Plus, she a pretty darn good actress.
I’ve got to say, I think this is Mike Hodges’ (director) and Paul Mayersberg’s (writer) finest film. To call it clever would be an understatement. The movie is so ingeniously bleak. I don’t entirely understand the world of gaming/gambling, but it’s very interesting to watch.
Summary: Against his better judgement, Jack (Clive Owen), an unemployed writer, takes the job his estranged father recommends: he becomes a croupier. He becomes more and more involved in casino life, stressing his relationship with his girlfriend Marion (Gina McKee). A beautiful South African punter, Jani (Alex Kingston), becomes involved with Jack outside of the casino and convinces him to help her rip the place off.
Quote from yours truly directly after the movie finished: “This movie’s PSYCHOTIC!”
That’s why I like to let movies settle before I write about them.
In all honest, one of the best movies I’ve seen in a while. It stars who I feel is one of Britain’s best leading men (and one of the sexiest), playing one of my favourite kinds of characters. I’m not entirely certain why, but I love amoral fictional characters. They’re never doing the right thing or the wrong thing – they just do whatever is best for them.
And I know I’m not alone in my passion for the amoral character. Given the incredible success of Pirates of the Caribbean: Curse of the Black Pearl and the Oscar nod for Depp, I know that plenty of people enjoy the amoral. Do you doubt that that is what Captain Jack Sparrow was?
When I went to see the movie in the theatre, a friend who accompanied me kept asking me which side he was on. I told the friend that he was on Jack Sparrow’s side. Tell me I’m wrong.
Owen does it with much more indifference here. His every action and reaction is so cold and removed – it’s magnetic. This is the role that gained Owen notoriety as an actor/leading man, and it’s no wonder. He’s a very subtle actor, and he makes his roles compelling in a way that a lesser actor would simply drown in them.
To be honest with you, I don’t get why people like McKee so much. I don’t think she’s that good of an actress, and I don’t find her pale, long face attractive. Maybe that’s just me, though.
Kingston, on the other hand, is a sexual dynamo. I never used to find her attractive until her character on er went to Hawaii, and she was suddenly in natural light and warm colours. She’s stunning, I think. Plus, she a pretty darn good actress.
I’ve got to say, I think this is Mike Hodges’ (director) and Paul Mayersberg’s (writer) finest film. To call it clever would be an understatement. The movie is so ingeniously bleak. I don’t entirely understand the world of gaming/gambling, but it’s very interesting to watch.
Wednesday, July 21, 2004
St. Elmo’s Fire (1985)
Short: Following seven friends after their graduation from college. Kirby (Emilio Estevez) is working as a waiter at their local while trying to woo an older doctor (Andie MacDowell); Billy (Rob Lowe) is an alcoholic with a wife, kid, and wandering eye, missing his glory days at the fraternity; Kevin (Andrew McCarthy) is a permanently single journalist forever obsessing about his “notes”; Jules (Demi Moore) is having an affair with her boss and a vial of cocaine; Alec’s (Judd Nelson) become a young Republican and wants to get married to Leslie (Ally Sheedy), who isn’t ready for that step; and Wendy (Mare Winningham)’s parents want her to marry a nice man and quit her job while she seeks more independence.
It’s actually not very confusing or involved, but it can be difficult to write out seven different intersecting plot lines.
I don’t know why, but I honestly feel like this is the best brat pack movie I have ever seen. It’s probably not, in truth, the best. It was, however, the best to me while I was watching it. So much so that I kind of wish I owned it.
I think that might have something to do with the fact that I get it. I know that there isn’t much to get in a brat pack movie on their best days, but I would still venture to say that I “get” this one.
See, most of the other ones are set in high school, including another one that came out that same year starring three of these uni grads (ha!). I find that their high school experiences are largely different than mine, and, while I enjoy them and can relate to elements of them, they don’t really resonate with me the way that they probably should.
The idea of being at a loss after I receive my diploma, however, makes perfect sense to me. Also, have a somewhat incestual, close-knit group of friends makes a lot of sense to me as well.
In any case, I admit that the movie’s actually not very good. Lowe, for example, while one of my favourite parts while he was on The West Wing, is so bad here. I don’t blame him, though.
I blame Joel Schumacher (writer/director) and Carl Kurlander (writer). Kurlander went on to write Saturday morning tween shows where all problems (including drug addictions) can be solved within half an hour, so I can’t say that I’m surprised.
Schumacher, on the other hand, is the most confusing writer/director ever. What does he want? Why can’t he make movies that make sense or are in some way linked? I can’t make head or tails of him. He makes a good movie; he makes three crap movies. Make up your mind, buddy!
I think that this is going to make the cut on my guilty pleasures list. It’s predictable and a little overboard at times, but it really hit the spot when I saw it.
Of course, I had just watched 2 war movies. That might have had something to do with it.
Short: Following seven friends after their graduation from college. Kirby (Emilio Estevez) is working as a waiter at their local while trying to woo an older doctor (Andie MacDowell); Billy (Rob Lowe) is an alcoholic with a wife, kid, and wandering eye, missing his glory days at the fraternity; Kevin (Andrew McCarthy) is a permanently single journalist forever obsessing about his “notes”; Jules (Demi Moore) is having an affair with her boss and a vial of cocaine; Alec’s (Judd Nelson) become a young Republican and wants to get married to Leslie (Ally Sheedy), who isn’t ready for that step; and Wendy (Mare Winningham)’s parents want her to marry a nice man and quit her job while she seeks more independence.
It’s actually not very confusing or involved, but it can be difficult to write out seven different intersecting plot lines.
I don’t know why, but I honestly feel like this is the best brat pack movie I have ever seen. It’s probably not, in truth, the best. It was, however, the best to me while I was watching it. So much so that I kind of wish I owned it.
I think that might have something to do with the fact that I get it. I know that there isn’t much to get in a brat pack movie on their best days, but I would still venture to say that I “get” this one.
See, most of the other ones are set in high school, including another one that came out that same year starring three of these uni grads (ha!). I find that their high school experiences are largely different than mine, and, while I enjoy them and can relate to elements of them, they don’t really resonate with me the way that they probably should.
The idea of being at a loss after I receive my diploma, however, makes perfect sense to me. Also, have a somewhat incestual, close-knit group of friends makes a lot of sense to me as well.
In any case, I admit that the movie’s actually not very good. Lowe, for example, while one of my favourite parts while he was on The West Wing, is so bad here. I don’t blame him, though.
I blame Joel Schumacher (writer/director) and Carl Kurlander (writer). Kurlander went on to write Saturday morning tween shows where all problems (including drug addictions) can be solved within half an hour, so I can’t say that I’m surprised.
Schumacher, on the other hand, is the most confusing writer/director ever. What does he want? Why can’t he make movies that make sense or are in some way linked? I can’t make head or tails of him. He makes a good movie; he makes three crap movies. Make up your mind, buddy!
I think that this is going to make the cut on my guilty pleasures list. It’s predictable and a little overboard at times, but it really hit the spot when I saw it.
Of course, I had just watched 2 war movies. That might have had something to do with it.
Tuesday, July 20, 2004
Casualties of War (1989)
Brief: When his patrol is sent on a long term recon, Eriksson (Michael J. Fox) jokingly suggests that they get a girl. He means a hooker. Unfortunately, the rest of his patrol decides to kidnap a young Vietnamese girl (Thuy Thu Le) from the village and take her with them. When Eriksson refuses to rape her as well, he lands himself in a death match with Meserve (Sean Penn), Clark (Don Harvey), Hatcher (John C. Reilly), and Diaz (John Leguizamo). Based on a true story.
Can I honestly tell you what I get out of movies like these? I hate war. I mean it. I know that sounds simplistic and prosaic and I’m not saying that I am going to start joining every protest from here to Kingdom. I’m just saying that they infuriate me.
And nothing, nothing infuriates me more than wars as useless as the Vietnam “conflict”. I don’t know who came up with that term, but, frankly, I’m none too pleased with him either. They left all these angry, frustrated, violent young men out there in the jungle with no direction or purpose and sat by while they committed atrocious war crimes.
So this movie, eh? It didn’t do it for me. I mean, I was distracted in the beginning by the really bad sets, but then they moved onto some location, and things were looking up. Plus, I knew what was going to happen plotwise, so you can’t say that’s what turned me off.
Maybe I was turned off by them trying to pass off Sean Penn as a 20 year-old. Maybe I was turned off by the fact that this is possibly Brian DePalma’s (director) worst movie. On the other hand, he did do Femme Fatale (2002).
It must have been David Rabe’s screenplay. There’s nothing to watch in it. I mean it, there’s no focus. The only thing I was focused on was when they were going to kill the girl. Not because I wanted her to die, but I knew they would. I just wished they would have done it sooner.
I bet you thought I was going to say Fox. Well, you’d be wrong. He was really good in this movie. I like him. I wish he could do more stuff.
P.S. Check out how awesome this is: http://www.interrobang-mks.com/
Brief: When his patrol is sent on a long term recon, Eriksson (Michael J. Fox) jokingly suggests that they get a girl. He means a hooker. Unfortunately, the rest of his patrol decides to kidnap a young Vietnamese girl (Thuy Thu Le) from the village and take her with them. When Eriksson refuses to rape her as well, he lands himself in a death match with Meserve (Sean Penn), Clark (Don Harvey), Hatcher (John C. Reilly), and Diaz (John Leguizamo). Based on a true story.
Can I honestly tell you what I get out of movies like these? I hate war. I mean it. I know that sounds simplistic and prosaic and I’m not saying that I am going to start joining every protest from here to Kingdom. I’m just saying that they infuriate me.
And nothing, nothing infuriates me more than wars as useless as the Vietnam “conflict”. I don’t know who came up with that term, but, frankly, I’m none too pleased with him either. They left all these angry, frustrated, violent young men out there in the jungle with no direction or purpose and sat by while they committed atrocious war crimes.
So this movie, eh? It didn’t do it for me. I mean, I was distracted in the beginning by the really bad sets, but then they moved onto some location, and things were looking up. Plus, I knew what was going to happen plotwise, so you can’t say that’s what turned me off.
Maybe I was turned off by them trying to pass off Sean Penn as a 20 year-old. Maybe I was turned off by the fact that this is possibly Brian DePalma’s (director) worst movie. On the other hand, he did do Femme Fatale (2002).
It must have been David Rabe’s screenplay. There’s nothing to watch in it. I mean it, there’s no focus. The only thing I was focused on was when they were going to kill the girl. Not because I wanted her to die, but I knew they would. I just wished they would have done it sooner.
I bet you thought I was going to say Fox. Well, you’d be wrong. He was really good in this movie. I like him. I wish he could do more stuff.
P.S. Check out how awesome this is: http://www.interrobang-mks.com/
Monday, July 19, 2004
Coffee and Cigarettes (2003)
Outline: Various vignettes over coffee and cigarettes featuring variegated celebs such as Meg and Jack White, Bill Murray, Steve Buscemi, Iggy Pop, Tom Waits, Roberto Benigni, Steven Wright, Alfred Molina, Steven Coogan, and Cate Blanchett.
So, in case it isn’t clear, people meet over coffee and cigarettes. Nothing else happens. There isn’t even any food involved. Simply talking, sipping, and smoking.
I’m telling you all of this because many people don’t like heavy dialogue movies. As I am loquacious, these sorts of movies appeal to me.
The movie is quite obviously a labour of love for Jim Jarmusch (writer/director). Filmed over the last 18 years, it’s clear where he stands. Unfortunately, his foundation’s a little shaky.
The vignettes on their own are impressive to watch. Sadly, the movie is weighed down by this feeling that Jarmusch thinks the movie is far better than it really is. In addition, the way he begins to tie the vignettes together (Indy 500 dreams and Nicolo Tesla) is clunky at best. I’m aware that he chose those two ideas for a reason, but they don’t solidify the movie the way they are meant to. Instead, the audience is left feeling like something was forced, which doesn’t vibe with the rest of the movie.
I think that this is a chick flick. Not in the girl power or romantic vein, but still a chick flick. I’m actually saying this because I read yet another column (http://www.cbc.ca/news/viewpoint/vp_binks/20040716.html ) about how men and women don’t talk the same way. Women, in the end, talk, and men, in comparison to women, don’t.
Excitement! I had the fortunate of seeing not one but TWO Alfred Molina movies this week-end. I finally went and saw Spider-Man 2 (2004) this week-end. As you know, I can’t review it. I can, however, tell you that it was even better than the original (and I was a big fan of the original).
I think I can sum it up by saying that Tobey Maguire is just the sweetest ever. I’ve thought so since The Ice Storm, and even Jake Gyllenhaal doesn’t compare in the forlorn puppy department.
Also, Alfred Molina kicks ass.
P.S. My blog is undergoing some maintenance. Let me know what you think of the new look!
Outline: Various vignettes over coffee and cigarettes featuring variegated celebs such as Meg and Jack White, Bill Murray, Steve Buscemi, Iggy Pop, Tom Waits, Roberto Benigni, Steven Wright, Alfred Molina, Steven Coogan, and Cate Blanchett.
So, in case it isn’t clear, people meet over coffee and cigarettes. Nothing else happens. There isn’t even any food involved. Simply talking, sipping, and smoking.
I’m telling you all of this because many people don’t like heavy dialogue movies. As I am loquacious, these sorts of movies appeal to me.
The movie is quite obviously a labour of love for Jim Jarmusch (writer/director). Filmed over the last 18 years, it’s clear where he stands. Unfortunately, his foundation’s a little shaky.
The vignettes on their own are impressive to watch. Sadly, the movie is weighed down by this feeling that Jarmusch thinks the movie is far better than it really is. In addition, the way he begins to tie the vignettes together (Indy 500 dreams and Nicolo Tesla) is clunky at best. I’m aware that he chose those two ideas for a reason, but they don’t solidify the movie the way they are meant to. Instead, the audience is left feeling like something was forced, which doesn’t vibe with the rest of the movie.
I think that this is a chick flick. Not in the girl power or romantic vein, but still a chick flick. I’m actually saying this because I read yet another column (http://www.cbc.ca/news/viewpoint/vp_binks/20040716.html ) about how men and women don’t talk the same way. Women, in the end, talk, and men, in comparison to women, don’t.
Excitement! I had the fortunate of seeing not one but TWO Alfred Molina movies this week-end. I finally went and saw Spider-Man 2 (2004) this week-end. As you know, I can’t review it. I can, however, tell you that it was even better than the original (and I was a big fan of the original).
I think I can sum it up by saying that Tobey Maguire is just the sweetest ever. I’ve thought so since The Ice Storm, and even Jake Gyllenhaal doesn’t compare in the forlorn puppy department.
Also, Alfred Molina kicks ass.
P.S. My blog is undergoing some maintenance. Let me know what you think of the new look!
Friday, July 16, 2004
Fast Times at Ridgemont High (1982)
Plot: Stacy (Jennifer Jason Leigh) wants a boyfriend. Linda (Phoebe Cates), her best friend, has an older lover. Stacy’s older brother, Brad (Judge Reinhold), wants his girlfriend to sleep with him. Rat (Brian Backer) wants Stacy. So, apparently, does his best friend, Mike (Robert Romanus). Jeff (Sean Penn) just wants to ride a gnarly wave.
So, basically speaking, high school.
I rented this movie to round out my Cameron Crowe (writer) collection. As it turns out, I’m still missing a movie. Which is great news, in my opinion, because I’m losing my faith in him.
Vanilla Sky rocked it, but I’ve accepted that it’s really some crazy Spanish movie called Open Your Eyes. I can deal with that.
But this . . . whatever the hell this was just didn’t do it for me.
Call me simple, but I like a movie with a plot. Apparently this movie was praised because it was the first to deal with “real issues” facing “teens today”. Or, in any case, “real issues facing” the teens in the movie.
The only “real issue” that is dealt with in the movie is teen pregnancy/abortion, and there is little or no lesson learned from the experience. In fact, no one even bothers discussing with the girl in the importance of safe sex. The nurse just recommends that the girl get a ride home after. Very helpful.
Aside from that 10 minute foray into “real issues”, the movie falls flat for one very simple, very crucial reason: there is no plot to be found. A random collection of uninteresting incidents and marginally funny moments are passed off as a plot. There’s not a compelling thing about it.
In fact, it seems more like an excuse to expose the young Leigh’s and Cates’ breasts, which are compelling plot points in and of themselves.
And, for the life of me, I cannot figure out why Sean Penn is top billed in this movie. He is in only a handful of scenes, and those scenes have little to do with the rest of the movie anyway.
Amy Heckerling’s direction is clunky at best and self-defeating at its worst. I get that there is no story to tell, but the least she could do is try to tell something, anything, with her shots.
So, to sum, I’m going to have to buck convention at this point and spend wasteful hours wondering why anyone in their right minds actually enjoys this movie.
Plot: Stacy (Jennifer Jason Leigh) wants a boyfriend. Linda (Phoebe Cates), her best friend, has an older lover. Stacy’s older brother, Brad (Judge Reinhold), wants his girlfriend to sleep with him. Rat (Brian Backer) wants Stacy. So, apparently, does his best friend, Mike (Robert Romanus). Jeff (Sean Penn) just wants to ride a gnarly wave.
So, basically speaking, high school.
I rented this movie to round out my Cameron Crowe (writer) collection. As it turns out, I’m still missing a movie. Which is great news, in my opinion, because I’m losing my faith in him.
Vanilla Sky rocked it, but I’ve accepted that it’s really some crazy Spanish movie called Open Your Eyes. I can deal with that.
But this . . . whatever the hell this was just didn’t do it for me.
Call me simple, but I like a movie with a plot. Apparently this movie was praised because it was the first to deal with “real issues” facing “teens today”. Or, in any case, “real issues facing” the teens in the movie.
The only “real issue” that is dealt with in the movie is teen pregnancy/abortion, and there is little or no lesson learned from the experience. In fact, no one even bothers discussing with the girl in the importance of safe sex. The nurse just recommends that the girl get a ride home after. Very helpful.
Aside from that 10 minute foray into “real issues”, the movie falls flat for one very simple, very crucial reason: there is no plot to be found. A random collection of uninteresting incidents and marginally funny moments are passed off as a plot. There’s not a compelling thing about it.
In fact, it seems more like an excuse to expose the young Leigh’s and Cates’ breasts, which are compelling plot points in and of themselves.
And, for the life of me, I cannot figure out why Sean Penn is top billed in this movie. He is in only a handful of scenes, and those scenes have little to do with the rest of the movie anyway.
Amy Heckerling’s direction is clunky at best and self-defeating at its worst. I get that there is no story to tell, but the least she could do is try to tell something, anything, with her shots.
So, to sum, I’m going to have to buck convention at this point and spend wasteful hours wondering why anyone in their right minds actually enjoys this movie.
Thursday, July 15, 2004
You know what? I’m not feeling a movie review today. I’m feeling a top five. Here we go:
Top 5 Girl Power Movies (2004)
As in, movies that make you feel empowered as a girl/woman/female.
1. Thelma and Louise - the right place to begin
2. The Joy Luck Club - also about Chinese empowerment
3. Boys on the Side - a great chick flick
4. Fried Green Tomatoes - possibly about lesbians, but who cares?
5. Chocolat - while definitely a girl power movie, not deserving of those Oscar nods
Check it out! I’ve added a new link to a place called Slate. I read a column (http://www.cbc.ca/news/viewpoint/vp_browndan/20040714.html ) about what a great site Slate is, and I decided to check it out for myself. It’s awesome. Honestly, the writing is top notch – a superb blend of intelligence and biting satire.
It reminds me a little of another site I know . . .
Just kidding. Their site is backed by talented people with interesting things to say. But I had to try, didn't I?
Top 5 Girl Power Movies (2004)
As in, movies that make you feel empowered as a girl/woman/female.
1. Thelma and Louise - the right place to begin
2. The Joy Luck Club - also about Chinese empowerment
3. Boys on the Side - a great chick flick
4. Fried Green Tomatoes - possibly about lesbians, but who cares?
5. Chocolat - while definitely a girl power movie, not deserving of those Oscar nods
Check it out! I’ve added a new link to a place called Slate. I read a column (http://www.cbc.ca/news/viewpoint/vp_browndan/20040714.html ) about what a great site Slate is, and I decided to check it out for myself. It’s awesome. Honestly, the writing is top notch – a superb blend of intelligence and biting satire.
It reminds me a little of another site I know . . .
Just kidding. Their site is backed by talented people with interesting things to say. But I had to try, didn't I?
Wednesday, July 14, 2004
Out of Sight (1998)
Outline: Jack Foley (George Clooney) breaks out of prison with the help of his ex-partner, Buddy (Ving Rhames), and they kidnap a US Marshall, Karen Sisco (Jennifer Lopez), in the process. An attraction develops while Karen and Jack are locked in the trunk, and Karen escapes only to spend her days chasing Jack down.
In all honesty, the only good movie Lopez has ever done. This was the first movie I ever saw her in, and I truly believe that every movie she’s done since gets worse and worse.
Clooney and Lopez are great together, though, and there’s enough chemistry between them to make their strange attraction palpable.
Now, I may have referred to Clooney as the Coens’ golden boy before, but I don’t think there’s anyone who loves him more than Steven Soderberg (director). He also seems to be a big fan of Don Cheadle, so I really can’t blame him.
Plus, it helps that he’s a great director. It’s like all his movies have this pulse to them, and there’s nothing you can do to stop it from sweeping right over you. It’s a fantastic feeling, really. He’s a director who gets carried away without the audience ever feeling that way. Everything’s always cut just so so that you’re never feeling drawn out or disappointed.
Scott Frank’s screenplay is best described as clever. Not the best I’ve ever seen but certainly not the worst. He seems to want to get right in there with his characters, even if it doesn’t always play out.
Oh, and Dennis Farina, Michael Keaton, Steve Zahn, Luis Guzman, Albert Brooks, and Catherine Keener are along for the ride, so that’s good.
I recommend it. I think it’s pretty fun. Fun’s a good thing in a movie.
For a different point of view on King Arthur (and that girl that's in it) click here.
Also, here's something that doesn't impress me at all:
Not impressed about this
Not impressed about this either
Outline: Jack Foley (George Clooney) breaks out of prison with the help of his ex-partner, Buddy (Ving Rhames), and they kidnap a US Marshall, Karen Sisco (Jennifer Lopez), in the process. An attraction develops while Karen and Jack are locked in the trunk, and Karen escapes only to spend her days chasing Jack down.
In all honesty, the only good movie Lopez has ever done. This was the first movie I ever saw her in, and I truly believe that every movie she’s done since gets worse and worse.
Clooney and Lopez are great together, though, and there’s enough chemistry between them to make their strange attraction palpable.
Now, I may have referred to Clooney as the Coens’ golden boy before, but I don’t think there’s anyone who loves him more than Steven Soderberg (director). He also seems to be a big fan of Don Cheadle, so I really can’t blame him.
Plus, it helps that he’s a great director. It’s like all his movies have this pulse to them, and there’s nothing you can do to stop it from sweeping right over you. It’s a fantastic feeling, really. He’s a director who gets carried away without the audience ever feeling that way. Everything’s always cut just so so that you’re never feeling drawn out or disappointed.
Scott Frank’s screenplay is best described as clever. Not the best I’ve ever seen but certainly not the worst. He seems to want to get right in there with his characters, even if it doesn’t always play out.
Oh, and Dennis Farina, Michael Keaton, Steve Zahn, Luis Guzman, Albert Brooks, and Catherine Keener are along for the ride, so that’s good.
I recommend it. I think it’s pretty fun. Fun’s a good thing in a movie.
For a different point of view on King Arthur (and that girl that's in it) click here.
Also, here's something that doesn't impress me at all:
Not impressed about this
Not impressed about this either
Tuesday, July 13, 2004
The Royal Tenenbaums (2001)
Editor’s Note: I have been informed that this movie is not so well known or critically acclaimed that I cannot comment on it. So here it is.
Premise: Etheline (Angelica Houston) and Royal (Gene Hackman) have been separate for 22 years. After announcing that he will be dead in six weeks and his subsequent desire to reconcile with his family of geniuses, Etheline finds her three adult children, Chas (Ben Stiller), Margot (Gwyneth Paltrow), and Richie (Luke Wilson), under the same roof for the first time in 17 years. Etheline struggles with a proposal from her accountant, Henry Sherman (Danny Glover), Margot with her strained relationship with her older husband, Raleigh St. Clair (Billy Murray), and Richie with his best friend, Eli Cash (Owen Wilson).
Man, it was hard to figure out a concise way to mention all the major players. There it is, though.
Don’t worry if it seems kind of confusing: Alec Baldwin narrates the whole thing with indifferent aplomb.
Actually, his narration is one of the many beautifully woven portions of this movie. There are many elements to it that could stand alone, but I’m glad that they don’t. Owen Wilson and Wes Anderson (writers) have an amazing way of keeping it all together.
I think the best way to describe how riotous this movie is is to say that it doesn’t try to be funny. Does that make sense? I mean that everyone, or nearly everything, is funny in this movie because there is seemingly little effort to make it funny. Things are simply happening. Things are simply said. It’s an absolute laugh-riot.
Except for one or two dark parts. Those weren’t so funny. I don’t think they were supposed to be, though.
As I said with Reality Bites, I really wish Stiller did more films like this one. He really gels with this stellar ensemble cast, and I don’t think I would be going too far when I say that the movie industry could probably do without movies like Dodgeball.
I don’t know where to start with this cast. It truly is an ensemble one, all playing and laughing and working together in a stunning way. Truly stunning. I’m talking, “Set your VCRs to stun – because you will be” stunning.
It helps that Wes Anderson’s, who also directed, got one hell of an eye for the comedic insanity. This isn’t the hilarity of everyday life. Anderson manages to make absolutely impossible things seem so reasonable. It’s his gift.
I think you should see this movie. It’s probably not for everyone, and it’s probably best reserved for a bit of a trippy mood. But it’s worthwhile.
Editor’s Note: I have been informed that this movie is not so well known or critically acclaimed that I cannot comment on it. So here it is.
Premise: Etheline (Angelica Houston) and Royal (Gene Hackman) have been separate for 22 years. After announcing that he will be dead in six weeks and his subsequent desire to reconcile with his family of geniuses, Etheline finds her three adult children, Chas (Ben Stiller), Margot (Gwyneth Paltrow), and Richie (Luke Wilson), under the same roof for the first time in 17 years. Etheline struggles with a proposal from her accountant, Henry Sherman (Danny Glover), Margot with her strained relationship with her older husband, Raleigh St. Clair (Billy Murray), and Richie with his best friend, Eli Cash (Owen Wilson).
Man, it was hard to figure out a concise way to mention all the major players. There it is, though.
Don’t worry if it seems kind of confusing: Alec Baldwin narrates the whole thing with indifferent aplomb.
Actually, his narration is one of the many beautifully woven portions of this movie. There are many elements to it that could stand alone, but I’m glad that they don’t. Owen Wilson and Wes Anderson (writers) have an amazing way of keeping it all together.
I think the best way to describe how riotous this movie is is to say that it doesn’t try to be funny. Does that make sense? I mean that everyone, or nearly everything, is funny in this movie because there is seemingly little effort to make it funny. Things are simply happening. Things are simply said. It’s an absolute laugh-riot.
Except for one or two dark parts. Those weren’t so funny. I don’t think they were supposed to be, though.
As I said with Reality Bites, I really wish Stiller did more films like this one. He really gels with this stellar ensemble cast, and I don’t think I would be going too far when I say that the movie industry could probably do without movies like Dodgeball.
I don’t know where to start with this cast. It truly is an ensemble one, all playing and laughing and working together in a stunning way. Truly stunning. I’m talking, “Set your VCRs to stun – because you will be” stunning.
It helps that Wes Anderson’s, who also directed, got one hell of an eye for the comedic insanity. This isn’t the hilarity of everyday life. Anderson manages to make absolutely impossible things seem so reasonable. It’s his gift.
I think you should see this movie. It’s probably not for everyone, and it’s probably best reserved for a bit of a trippy mood. But it’s worthwhile.
Monday, July 12, 2004
The House of Mirth (2000)
Idea: Lily Bart (Gillian Anderson) is a beautiful woman who desires a life of independence. Unfortunately, in New York in 1905, independence is not hers to be had. She aims to marry rich but falls for Lawrence Selden (Eric Stoltz), the former lover of her married best friend, Bertha (Laura Linney). Her quest for financial independence lands her in the debt of her other best friend’s husband, Gus (Dan Aykroyd), which puts her in a compromising position.
Remember when I reviewed Wilde, and I said that the writers wanted us to believe that everyone in Victorian/turn of the century England was gay and coming on to Oscar Wilde?
Well, Edith Wharton (novelist) and Terence Davies (writer/director) want the viewer to believe that everyone in the oughts was straight and coming on to Lily Bart, despite their marital status.
The hysterical part is that I can’t imagine why! I can see how Anderson could be considered a good looking lady, so I’ll give them points for that. But she’s a terrible actress! The only thing she did convincingly was hyperventilate. Unfortunately, that was her reaction to every situation, so I can hardly say that she possesses much in the way of discernment.
Luckily, she’s a got a pretty stellar cast to hold her up. There’s Stoltz, Linney, and Aykroyd, plus Anthony LaPaglia! Excitement!
I’ve started theorizing a fair bit lately. This movie is another example of two things that I have been noticing frequently in films.
1) If you are a woman, particularly in Victorian times, and you are either a) stuck in a marriage that you don’t want, or b) trying to avoid a marriage you don’t want, you kill yourself. Apparently, despite a multitude of other options, suicide is the most likely choice for these ladies.
2) When a woman comes between two men, those men will initially go after each other but generally get over it. However, when a man comes between two women, one, if not both, will stop at nothing to destroy the other’s life. Not just their relationship with that man, oh no, their entire life.
In my personal experience, I have observed neither of the above two trends in real life. So why are they so prevalent elsewhere?
Basically speaking, I don’t think I like Edith Wharton novels turned into movies. They always seem to be about people in love who never get together. At all. Just desire and disappointment. While realistic, I suppose, it’s not very interesting to watch. Davies makes it clear that Lily is doomed from the outset, so it’s difficult to believe in her for more than a second.
And, really, what’s the point of a protagonist that you can’t believe in?
Idea: Lily Bart (Gillian Anderson) is a beautiful woman who desires a life of independence. Unfortunately, in New York in 1905, independence is not hers to be had. She aims to marry rich but falls for Lawrence Selden (Eric Stoltz), the former lover of her married best friend, Bertha (Laura Linney). Her quest for financial independence lands her in the debt of her other best friend’s husband, Gus (Dan Aykroyd), which puts her in a compromising position.
Remember when I reviewed Wilde, and I said that the writers wanted us to believe that everyone in Victorian/turn of the century England was gay and coming on to Oscar Wilde?
Well, Edith Wharton (novelist) and Terence Davies (writer/director) want the viewer to believe that everyone in the oughts was straight and coming on to Lily Bart, despite their marital status.
The hysterical part is that I can’t imagine why! I can see how Anderson could be considered a good looking lady, so I’ll give them points for that. But she’s a terrible actress! The only thing she did convincingly was hyperventilate. Unfortunately, that was her reaction to every situation, so I can hardly say that she possesses much in the way of discernment.
Luckily, she’s a got a pretty stellar cast to hold her up. There’s Stoltz, Linney, and Aykroyd, plus Anthony LaPaglia! Excitement!
I’ve started theorizing a fair bit lately. This movie is another example of two things that I have been noticing frequently in films.
1) If you are a woman, particularly in Victorian times, and you are either a) stuck in a marriage that you don’t want, or b) trying to avoid a marriage you don’t want, you kill yourself. Apparently, despite a multitude of other options, suicide is the most likely choice for these ladies.
2) When a woman comes between two men, those men will initially go after each other but generally get over it. However, when a man comes between two women, one, if not both, will stop at nothing to destroy the other’s life. Not just their relationship with that man, oh no, their entire life.
In my personal experience, I have observed neither of the above two trends in real life. So why are they so prevalent elsewhere?
Basically speaking, I don’t think I like Edith Wharton novels turned into movies. They always seem to be about people in love who never get together. At all. Just desire and disappointment. While realistic, I suppose, it’s not very interesting to watch. Davies makes it clear that Lily is doomed from the outset, so it’s difficult to believe in her for more than a second.
And, really, what’s the point of a protagonist that you can’t believe in?
Saturday, July 10, 2004
King Arthur (2004)
Plot: Lancelot (Ioan Gruffudd) is one of the Sarmatian knights, world-renowned for their riding skills. He, and the six others still alive, have been waiting 15 long years to be released from their post in Britain to return to their homeland. Their leader, a half-Roman, half-Briton, Arthur (Clive Owen) discovers that their freedom has an additional price: they must rescue a Roman citizen and his family far in the North from the incoming Saxon invasion. While they are there, they discover a beautiful young Briton girl, Guinevere (Keira Knightley), whom the Roman was holding captive, among others.
Alright, in terms of plot summary, I feel like that’s the best I can do.
Caution: Spoilers Ahead!
As you know, I was really excited about seeing this movie. I knew, like Troy, that this was supposed to be a demystified version. I also knew that Arthur and Merlin (Stephen Dillane) were going to be enemies rather than mentor and protege. I was prepared for all of that.
I was not, however, prepared for what a horrible movie this was! I don’t think I could have been more disappointed. I kept waking up last night and saying to myself, “That movie SUCKED!” or “I can’t believe they killed him.” So, yeah, someone dies.
And I know exactly what the problem was – it was the most self-serious movie I have seen since I don’t know when.
Pop Quiz: What have I always said was the one irredeemable factor in what makes up a movie? What, if this was not top notch, would mean the movie would fail no matter how good the other things are?
Answer: Script. Screenplay, plotline, whatever you want to call it. If it’s not there, no matter how awesome everything else is, it just doesn’t happen.
Which is the part I don’t get. This movie is so well bred. It combines the stellar director of Training Day, Antoine Fuqua, the amazing writer of Gladiator, David Franzoni, and two of Britain’s premiere actors (Owen and Gruffudd).
Fuqua did an amazing job. He brought us all the grit and power of Training Day, but this time he had a greater focus on detail. I really don’t think I could ask for more from him.
The casting, I’m not at all kidding, was nothing short of impressive. Gruffudd captured all of Lancelot’s fire, understanding that it was not ego that drove him but sorrow. Owen gave Arthur his depth and filled him with the tension of a man without a real home. Even though their characterizations were a very different, I enjoyed Ray Winstone as Bors, Ray Stevenson as Dagonet, Joel Edgerton as Gawaine, Hugh Dancy as Galahad, and Mads Mikkelsen as Tristan.
And there was good swordplay and equestrian things going on. Owen had never ridden a horse before, and he did quite well. I didn’t entirely understand why Lancelot had to carry three swords, but cool things were happening there as well.
But I cannot comprehend what Franzoni was thinking. What a betrayal this movie was. I came to the point where if he made one more Shakespearean allusion, I was going to slit my throat. I’ve got news for you, buddy, you aren’t the Bard.
Your self-important, conceited and over-the-top screenplay took away your chance, and everyone else’s, at doing something great, something powerful, something real. You messed about the characters, giving Guinevere’s characteristics to Lancelot and vice versa. Then you deprived me of my all important love-triangle. Yet another writer misses the opportunity that I clearly see; Guinevere has the potential to be one of the greatest tragic heroines of all time, but no one will embrace that challenge.
So don’t waste your money seeing this movie. Guinevere is not a warrior princess, and you do not need to see her none existent boobies this much. Of course, if you are me, there was this moment between Owen and Gruffudd that almost made it worthwhile.
Almost.
Plot: Lancelot (Ioan Gruffudd) is one of the Sarmatian knights, world-renowned for their riding skills. He, and the six others still alive, have been waiting 15 long years to be released from their post in Britain to return to their homeland. Their leader, a half-Roman, half-Briton, Arthur (Clive Owen) discovers that their freedom has an additional price: they must rescue a Roman citizen and his family far in the North from the incoming Saxon invasion. While they are there, they discover a beautiful young Briton girl, Guinevere (Keira Knightley), whom the Roman was holding captive, among others.
Alright, in terms of plot summary, I feel like that’s the best I can do.
Caution: Spoilers Ahead!
As you know, I was really excited about seeing this movie. I knew, like Troy, that this was supposed to be a demystified version. I also knew that Arthur and Merlin (Stephen Dillane) were going to be enemies rather than mentor and protege. I was prepared for all of that.
I was not, however, prepared for what a horrible movie this was! I don’t think I could have been more disappointed. I kept waking up last night and saying to myself, “That movie SUCKED!” or “I can’t believe they killed him.” So, yeah, someone dies.
And I know exactly what the problem was – it was the most self-serious movie I have seen since I don’t know when.
Pop Quiz: What have I always said was the one irredeemable factor in what makes up a movie? What, if this was not top notch, would mean the movie would fail no matter how good the other things are?
Answer: Script. Screenplay, plotline, whatever you want to call it. If it’s not there, no matter how awesome everything else is, it just doesn’t happen.
Which is the part I don’t get. This movie is so well bred. It combines the stellar director of Training Day, Antoine Fuqua, the amazing writer of Gladiator, David Franzoni, and two of Britain’s premiere actors (Owen and Gruffudd).
Fuqua did an amazing job. He brought us all the grit and power of Training Day, but this time he had a greater focus on detail. I really don’t think I could ask for more from him.
The casting, I’m not at all kidding, was nothing short of impressive. Gruffudd captured all of Lancelot’s fire, understanding that it was not ego that drove him but sorrow. Owen gave Arthur his depth and filled him with the tension of a man without a real home. Even though their characterizations were a very different, I enjoyed Ray Winstone as Bors, Ray Stevenson as Dagonet, Joel Edgerton as Gawaine, Hugh Dancy as Galahad, and Mads Mikkelsen as Tristan.
And there was good swordplay and equestrian things going on. Owen had never ridden a horse before, and he did quite well. I didn’t entirely understand why Lancelot had to carry three swords, but cool things were happening there as well.
But I cannot comprehend what Franzoni was thinking. What a betrayal this movie was. I came to the point where if he made one more Shakespearean allusion, I was going to slit my throat. I’ve got news for you, buddy, you aren’t the Bard.
Your self-important, conceited and over-the-top screenplay took away your chance, and everyone else’s, at doing something great, something powerful, something real. You messed about the characters, giving Guinevere’s characteristics to Lancelot and vice versa. Then you deprived me of my all important love-triangle. Yet another writer misses the opportunity that I clearly see; Guinevere has the potential to be one of the greatest tragic heroines of all time, but no one will embrace that challenge.
So don’t waste your money seeing this movie. Guinevere is not a warrior princess, and you do not need to see her none existent boobies this much. Of course, if you are me, there was this moment between Owen and Gruffudd that almost made it worthwhile.
Almost.
Wednesday, July 07, 2004
It is, after all, MY blog (2004)
I’ve come under some recent criticism concerning my taste in movies. These comments have referred to both my personal collection of movies, and the movies I choose the review for this site. Normally, I would take no mind of comments such as these, but, because they have been directed at me thrice, I will address them.
Obviously this site is in the spirit of my beliefs. As I have said in the past, my goal here is to bring to you movies that I feel you should (and some that you should not) see. Yes, I tend to steer away from big Hollywood blockbusters or highly critically acclaimed “I’d like to thank the Academy” movies.
I lean this way for various reasons.
1) You probably already know all that you need to know about movies like that. It’s not that I haven’t talked about blockbusters before (e.g. Troy), and it’s not that I won’t again (e.g. King Arthur). But generally speaking, I do not believe that my opinion of such movies makes any difference.
2) What comments could I possibly add to the reams of accolades about certain films? What insight could I have about, for example, The Godfather, that hasn’t already been dissected and disseminated?
3) Chances are that movies/films like those are among your favourites. You probably enjoy quite a few movies like Spiderman or Lord of the Rings. I do not think that you want/would appreciate to hear my opinion of either of the above.
4) Movies/films like that are not what I strive to comment on here.
This is definitely pretentious: I want to tell you, for the most part, about movies that you might otherwise never hear about.
Look, I’m not under the impression that I write a favourable review, and you, gentle reader, run right out and rent the darn thing. I will tell you what I hope for. I hope, that on some distant evening, while wondering the aisles of Blockbuster, Roger’s, or your local library (places that make even the most decisive and opinionated of people simply shrug their shoulders), you might see a video that I raved about, and you might consider getting it. I don’t anticipate that you will; I want to believe that you would think about it.
Here are the three things I know when it comes to all forms of art, high and low:
1) As my mom always said, “There’s no accounting for taste.” People like what they like, and they dislike what they dislike. Nothing could be more reasonable.
2) Everyone thinks they have good taste. The problem with that is that people automatically assume that because they like something it’s good. I always thought the key to having good taste was to realize that liking something had little influence on its quality.
3) When it comes to criticism, there is a shift. You can still like whatever you want, and you are now forced to admit it. The basic idea is that you can still like something that is “bad”, but you have to be in a position where you can openly say that it is “bad”. Movies like that are what I call guilty pleasures.
I’m not running around here with a journalistic sense of impartiality (not that journalists always are). I know I have a bias. I have a bias about what movies that I review based on what movies I see. I am biased about what movies I see based on personal tastes. I will not, I wager, ever see Scooby Doo 2: Monsters Unleashed .
And that’s my prerogative. I have no desire to see that movie, so I won’t.
Now about my personal collection. Movies that you own are very different than movies that you see. In fact, I might even see a movie more than once but never actually purchase it. I might really, really like a movie but still not own it.
The deal with owning movies is that they have to be movies that you want to see again and again. They have to be movies that, for example, can cheer you up when you are feeling down or let you have a good cry.
I know what I am about to say is going to make me seem like I belong in a mental institution, but I’m going for it anyway: Movies that you own, that you actually choose to pay for, are like old friends. There is something comforting and free from judgement about them. You like having them around. When they are on, you are glad.
So, yes, I am insane. That’s not a newsflash.
Consider this my manifesto. The comments box is there for a reason. You can agree or disagree with my opinions about movies, actors, directors, screenwriters, or composers. You can tell me what you think in no uncertain terms. You can suggest movies that you think I should review. I'll probably even get around to watching them. I'm game for all of that.
But I am not game for you telling me what movies I should and should not review. This is my site, and here we play by my rules.
I’ve come under some recent criticism concerning my taste in movies. These comments have referred to both my personal collection of movies, and the movies I choose the review for this site. Normally, I would take no mind of comments such as these, but, because they have been directed at me thrice, I will address them.
Obviously this site is in the spirit of my beliefs. As I have said in the past, my goal here is to bring to you movies that I feel you should (and some that you should not) see. Yes, I tend to steer away from big Hollywood blockbusters or highly critically acclaimed “I’d like to thank the Academy” movies.
I lean this way for various reasons.
1) You probably already know all that you need to know about movies like that. It’s not that I haven’t talked about blockbusters before (e.g. Troy), and it’s not that I won’t again (e.g. King Arthur). But generally speaking, I do not believe that my opinion of such movies makes any difference.
2) What comments could I possibly add to the reams of accolades about certain films? What insight could I have about, for example, The Godfather, that hasn’t already been dissected and disseminated?
3) Chances are that movies/films like those are among your favourites. You probably enjoy quite a few movies like Spiderman or Lord of the Rings. I do not think that you want/would appreciate to hear my opinion of either of the above.
4) Movies/films like that are not what I strive to comment on here.
This is definitely pretentious: I want to tell you, for the most part, about movies that you might otherwise never hear about.
Look, I’m not under the impression that I write a favourable review, and you, gentle reader, run right out and rent the darn thing. I will tell you what I hope for. I hope, that on some distant evening, while wondering the aisles of Blockbuster, Roger’s, or your local library (places that make even the most decisive and opinionated of people simply shrug their shoulders), you might see a video that I raved about, and you might consider getting it. I don’t anticipate that you will; I want to believe that you would think about it.
Here are the three things I know when it comes to all forms of art, high and low:
1) As my mom always said, “There’s no accounting for taste.” People like what they like, and they dislike what they dislike. Nothing could be more reasonable.
2) Everyone thinks they have good taste. The problem with that is that people automatically assume that because they like something it’s good. I always thought the key to having good taste was to realize that liking something had little influence on its quality.
3) When it comes to criticism, there is a shift. You can still like whatever you want, and you are now forced to admit it. The basic idea is that you can still like something that is “bad”, but you have to be in a position where you can openly say that it is “bad”. Movies like that are what I call guilty pleasures.
I’m not running around here with a journalistic sense of impartiality (not that journalists always are). I know I have a bias. I have a bias about what movies that I review based on what movies I see. I am biased about what movies I see based on personal tastes. I will not, I wager, ever see Scooby Doo 2: Monsters Unleashed .
And that’s my prerogative. I have no desire to see that movie, so I won’t.
Now about my personal collection. Movies that you own are very different than movies that you see. In fact, I might even see a movie more than once but never actually purchase it. I might really, really like a movie but still not own it.
The deal with owning movies is that they have to be movies that you want to see again and again. They have to be movies that, for example, can cheer you up when you are feeling down or let you have a good cry.
I know what I am about to say is going to make me seem like I belong in a mental institution, but I’m going for it anyway: Movies that you own, that you actually choose to pay for, are like old friends. There is something comforting and free from judgement about them. You like having them around. When they are on, you are glad.
So, yes, I am insane. That’s not a newsflash.
Consider this my manifesto. The comments box is there for a reason. You can agree or disagree with my opinions about movies, actors, directors, screenwriters, or composers. You can tell me what you think in no uncertain terms. You can suggest movies that you think I should review. I'll probably even get around to watching them. I'm game for all of that.
But I am not game for you telling me what movies I should and should not review. This is my site, and here we play by my rules.
Tuesday, July 06, 2004
Greenfingers (2000)
Summary: When Colin Briggs (Clive Owen) is transferred to Edgefield, an open concept prison, he intends to keep his nose clean until he’s up for parole. But his kindly roommate, Fergus (David Kelly), rubs off on him, and Colin discovers that he has a natural affinity for gardening. When acclaimed gardener Georgina Woodhouse (Helen Mirren), Colin’s gardening idol, spies their prison garden, she decides to sponsor them in the prestigious Hampton Court Garden Show.
And here’s the kicker: “Inspired by actual events”.
Okay, do you see that year? It made me say “SHUT UP!” because this is absolute insanity.
This movie is so funny! How do the British do it? Why do all these crazy things happen over in that little country? In a place where the population density is 377 people/km2 , I don’t understand how the people have room to think, much less think hysterical thoughts.
I really, really wish Joel Hershman (writer/director) made more movies. This spirited outing is glib and charming, and I, for one, want more.
I don’t think you need me to tell you about my love for Helen Mirren, David Kelly, and Clive Owen again, do you?
Well, maybe a little bit.
Owen, while sexy and talented, might not be best suited to comedy. I enjoyed him here, but I think there could have been more. I’d have to see more of him to be sure. Speaking of seeing more of him, King Arthur comes out tomorrow. I’m pumped to see it on Friday. Y’all are welcome to join me.
I think this is definitely one that you will have to make up your minds about yourself. I mean, it’s not that I am under the impression that I decide these things for you. I’m saying that this comedy, while hilarious, doesn’t feel like it has a home for everyone in it. I suppose that would be its only major flaw.
Summary: When Colin Briggs (Clive Owen) is transferred to Edgefield, an open concept prison, he intends to keep his nose clean until he’s up for parole. But his kindly roommate, Fergus (David Kelly), rubs off on him, and Colin discovers that he has a natural affinity for gardening. When acclaimed gardener Georgina Woodhouse (Helen Mirren), Colin’s gardening idol, spies their prison garden, she decides to sponsor them in the prestigious Hampton Court Garden Show.
And here’s the kicker: “Inspired by actual events”.
Okay, do you see that year? It made me say “SHUT UP!” because this is absolute insanity.
This movie is so funny! How do the British do it? Why do all these crazy things happen over in that little country? In a place where the population density is 377 people/km2 , I don’t understand how the people have room to think, much less think hysterical thoughts.
I really, really wish Joel Hershman (writer/director) made more movies. This spirited outing is glib and charming, and I, for one, want more.
I don’t think you need me to tell you about my love for Helen Mirren, David Kelly, and Clive Owen again, do you?
Well, maybe a little bit.
Owen, while sexy and talented, might not be best suited to comedy. I enjoyed him here, but I think there could have been more. I’d have to see more of him to be sure. Speaking of seeing more of him, King Arthur comes out tomorrow. I’m pumped to see it on Friday. Y’all are welcome to join me.
I think this is definitely one that you will have to make up your minds about yourself. I mean, it’s not that I am under the impression that I decide these things for you. I’m saying that this comedy, while hilarious, doesn’t feel like it has a home for everyone in it. I suppose that would be its only major flaw.
Monday, July 05, 2004
Wilde (1997)
Brief: The life and times of Oscar Wilde. Oh, alright: the story of Oscar Wilde’s (Stephen Fry) marriage to Constance (Jennifer Ehle), who introduces Oscar to Robbie Ross (Michael Sheen). Robbie introduces Oscar to his desire for “gross indecency”, as well as a plethora of other men, including John Gray (Ioan Gruffudd) and Oscar’s long time lover, Lord Alfred “Bosie” Douglas (Jude Law). The Marquess of Queensberry (Tom Wilkinson), Bosie’s father, leads a witch-hunt against Wilde for “buggering” his son.
Basically, a fine English film.
Okay, I confess. As much as I like Oscar Wilde, his writing, and many of the actors in this film, it was when I read that Gruffudd was in it that I was finally pushed over the edge into renting it. Or, rather, attempting to rent it. It was missing within the confines of the Blockbuster. I found it unbelievable that anyone other than me, much less multiple people, would want to rent it. I was right.
But they should! Well, okay, maybe they shouldn’t. It’s definitely the kind of film that appeals to me, but I wouldn’t recommend it for everyone.
Here’s what I think:
Ehle has the sweetest face I have ever seen, and she is talented as well.
Law has got that whole selfish, beastly, highly sexual character thing down. And he is quite comfortable with his body.
Wilkinson is stellar. Honestly, he’s amazing, and it seems there is nothing that he can’t do.
I’m not at all familiar with Brian Gilbert (director) or Julian Mitchell (writer). Mitchell’s character development left something to be desired in certain cases, but Gilbert did his best to pick up the slack.
Also, it seems that Mitchell would have us believe that everyone in Victorian/Turn of the Century England was gay and coming onto Wilde.
I cannot understand why Orlando Bloom is billed so high considering that he has one line. I mean, I know you have to bill everyone who has a speaking part, but that’s just silly.
Although, there is Vanessa Redgrave to balance it out. Who’s going to argue with that?
Brief: The life and times of Oscar Wilde. Oh, alright: the story of Oscar Wilde’s (Stephen Fry) marriage to Constance (Jennifer Ehle), who introduces Oscar to Robbie Ross (Michael Sheen). Robbie introduces Oscar to his desire for “gross indecency”, as well as a plethora of other men, including John Gray (Ioan Gruffudd) and Oscar’s long time lover, Lord Alfred “Bosie” Douglas (Jude Law). The Marquess of Queensberry (Tom Wilkinson), Bosie’s father, leads a witch-hunt against Wilde for “buggering” his son.
Basically, a fine English film.
Okay, I confess. As much as I like Oscar Wilde, his writing, and many of the actors in this film, it was when I read that Gruffudd was in it that I was finally pushed over the edge into renting it. Or, rather, attempting to rent it. It was missing within the confines of the Blockbuster. I found it unbelievable that anyone other than me, much less multiple people, would want to rent it. I was right.
But they should! Well, okay, maybe they shouldn’t. It’s definitely the kind of film that appeals to me, but I wouldn’t recommend it for everyone.
Here’s what I think:
Ehle has the sweetest face I have ever seen, and she is talented as well.
Law has got that whole selfish, beastly, highly sexual character thing down. And he is quite comfortable with his body.
Wilkinson is stellar. Honestly, he’s amazing, and it seems there is nothing that he can’t do.
I’m not at all familiar with Brian Gilbert (director) or Julian Mitchell (writer). Mitchell’s character development left something to be desired in certain cases, but Gilbert did his best to pick up the slack.
Also, it seems that Mitchell would have us believe that everyone in Victorian/Turn of the Century England was gay and coming onto Wilde.
I cannot understand why Orlando Bloom is billed so high considering that he has one line. I mean, I know you have to bill everyone who has a speaking part, but that’s just silly.
Although, there is Vanessa Redgrave to balance it out. Who’s going to argue with that?
Sunday, July 04, 2004
Tape (2001)
Premise: When Vince (Ethan Hawke) travels to Lansing to attend a film festival where his high school best friend Jon’s (Robert Sean Leonard) latest film is shown, he decides to look up Amy (Uma Thurman), his high school sweetheart whom John slept with after they broke up.
I can definitely say that this is one of the best independent films I have seen in a while.
Unfortunately, some independent films have such a phoney air about them. It’s like they are made by those film students that annoy me so much. “We’re the genius children of the counter culture,” they all seem to say. The trouble with that statement is that they don’t realize that the counter-culture is the culture now.
But enough about them.
If there is one thing I like about Richard Linklater’s direction, it’s his focus on all the minutiae of conversation: every gesticulation, every change in tone, every gesture. Words are powerful, and they honestly mean so much. Linklater just gets that.
Stephen Balber’s screenplay is something else. It revolves are three very different perspectives of a seemingly (or, rather, ideally) in-interpretable event. I wouldn’t call it subtle, but it deals with a serious issue in a way that I have never seen it dealt with before. It’s quite alarming, actually.
And how awesome is it that Leonard still does movies? I love those movies, those leading roles that made him famous (e.g. Dead Poet’s Society). I tell you truly, he’s still got it. All that anger, angst, talent, passion that made him so impossible to ignore is still there.
There is one teeny little problem: I feel unresolved. I am still wondering what happened that night. I seems like they all had one score or agenda that they wanted to play out when they met up again in that motel room, and I think they all did, to a certain extent. I just don’t feel like they came to a consensus about any of it.
I suppose they don’t have to, and I really wish they would.
Premise: When Vince (Ethan Hawke) travels to Lansing to attend a film festival where his high school best friend Jon’s (Robert Sean Leonard) latest film is shown, he decides to look up Amy (Uma Thurman), his high school sweetheart whom John slept with after they broke up.
I can definitely say that this is one of the best independent films I have seen in a while.
Unfortunately, some independent films have such a phoney air about them. It’s like they are made by those film students that annoy me so much. “We’re the genius children of the counter culture,” they all seem to say. The trouble with that statement is that they don’t realize that the counter-culture is the culture now.
But enough about them.
If there is one thing I like about Richard Linklater’s direction, it’s his focus on all the minutiae of conversation: every gesticulation, every change in tone, every gesture. Words are powerful, and they honestly mean so much. Linklater just gets that.
Stephen Balber’s screenplay is something else. It revolves are three very different perspectives of a seemingly (or, rather, ideally) in-interpretable event. I wouldn’t call it subtle, but it deals with a serious issue in a way that I have never seen it dealt with before. It’s quite alarming, actually.
And how awesome is it that Leonard still does movies? I love those movies, those leading roles that made him famous (e.g. Dead Poet’s Society). I tell you truly, he’s still got it. All that anger, angst, talent, passion that made him so impossible to ignore is still there.
There is one teeny little problem: I feel unresolved. I am still wondering what happened that night. I seems like they all had one score or agenda that they wanted to play out when they met up again in that motel room, and I think they all did, to a certain extent. I just don’t feel like they came to a consensus about any of it.
I suppose they don’t have to, and I really wish they would.
Saturday, July 03, 2004
Road to Perdition (2002)
Outline: Michael Sullivan, Sr. (Tom Hanks) must take his son, Michael, Jr. (Tyler Hoechlin) on the run in the winter of 1931 after Michael, Jr., witnesses Connor (Daniel Craig), the son of his boss, John Rooney (Paul Newman), murder another man.
Of course, the title is a little misleading. This movie should be called American Beauty Lite: All the heartbreak but half the clever. Such a disappointment.
I suppose that genius directorial debuts like Sam Mendes' don't go unpunished. You are apparently doomed to make the same movie again.
But April, you say, you can't tell me that present day and the Depression are the same thing. You're right. I also can't tell you that Hanks and Kevin Spacey are the same actor. I would, however, go as far as to say that they are actors of the same calibre.
In this case, Newman steps into the role of Chris Cooper's violent and confused father. Newman plays up his age with those slow, small steps, as well as a father's love for a disobedient son.
It's all so beautiful and compelling to watch, but there simply isn't an original word in David Self's screenplay. His earlier attempts, The Haunting (1999) and Thirteen Days (2000), are polar oppositions. It's so very strange. It's almost as though he doesn't really know what he's doing. He writes without considering the words he's using.
And if Thomas Newman recycles his score from American Beauty one more time, I'm going to find him and kick him. It's frustrating to hear talent like that and never hear that same ingenuity again.
What a waste. A beautiful and poignant waste but a waste nonetheless.
Outline: Michael Sullivan, Sr. (Tom Hanks) must take his son, Michael, Jr. (Tyler Hoechlin) on the run in the winter of 1931 after Michael, Jr., witnesses Connor (Daniel Craig), the son of his boss, John Rooney (Paul Newman), murder another man.
Of course, the title is a little misleading. This movie should be called American Beauty Lite: All the heartbreak but half the clever. Such a disappointment.
I suppose that genius directorial debuts like Sam Mendes' don't go unpunished. You are apparently doomed to make the same movie again.
But April, you say, you can't tell me that present day and the Depression are the same thing. You're right. I also can't tell you that Hanks and Kevin Spacey are the same actor. I would, however, go as far as to say that they are actors of the same calibre.
In this case, Newman steps into the role of Chris Cooper's violent and confused father. Newman plays up his age with those slow, small steps, as well as a father's love for a disobedient son.
It's all so beautiful and compelling to watch, but there simply isn't an original word in David Self's screenplay. His earlier attempts, The Haunting (1999) and Thirteen Days (2000), are polar oppositions. It's so very strange. It's almost as though he doesn't really know what he's doing. He writes without considering the words he's using.
And if Thomas Newman recycles his score from American Beauty one more time, I'm going to find him and kick him. It's frustrating to hear talent like that and never hear that same ingenuity again.
What a waste. A beautiful and poignant waste but a waste nonetheless.
Friday, July 02, 2004
Marlon Brando (1924-2004)
Reference: Check it out
So, as you may have heard, Marlon Brando has passed away. It's a little weird because I have been thinking about him a lot lately. I recently read that he was working on a movie about his life, but I guess that's on hold for now.
I don't really know why I have been thinking about him. I have, if you can imagine, among my correspondence and photographs that adorn my desk, a picture of Brando up in my space at the office. It's circa 1960, and he's appears to have just gone swimming off the coast of Santa Monica, in his clothes no less.
Yes, there have been some jokes about that.
Since I heard, I have been trying to figure out what movie of his that I would review as a tribute to the original method actor. I thought of all those movies from early in his career that made him famous: A Streetcar Named Desire (1951), Viva Zapata! (1952), Julius Caesar (1953), and On the Waterfront (1954). 4 Oscar nods in as many years. How is that done?
Abiding by my own rules, all of the above and what is probably one of his most imitated and best remembered roles, Vito Corleone in Mario Puzo's The Godfather, are absolutely out of the question. Of course, I always wondered what he really thought of that movie since he refused the award the Academy thought fit to bestow upon him.
That was the thing with Brando, though. He could do that and get away with it. He could do anything, really. It wasn't that he was a hurricane. His power didn't erupt and destroy that way. He could, don't get me wrong, but I don't think that was it.
Corleone, for example, wasn't just a wise guy. And he's also not to be pigeon-holed as the "mobster with the heart of gold". He was a complex man: very sad, very sweet, and he loved his family. He loved them more than anything, and I believe that was the only lesson he wanted to pass on to them.
In the end, though, I don't think that's how I will remember Brando. If I am going to remember him at all, then it will be as he was at the end of his last movie, The Score (2001). His character, Max, is just sitting there at the bottom of an empty pool, laughing and laughing.
That puts a smile on my face.
And it's nice to go out with such an ingenious heist flick.
Reference: Check it out
So, as you may have heard, Marlon Brando has passed away. It's a little weird because I have been thinking about him a lot lately. I recently read that he was working on a movie about his life, but I guess that's on hold for now.
I don't really know why I have been thinking about him. I have, if you can imagine, among my correspondence and photographs that adorn my desk, a picture of Brando up in my space at the office. It's circa 1960, and he's appears to have just gone swimming off the coast of Santa Monica, in his clothes no less.
Yes, there have been some jokes about that.
Since I heard, I have been trying to figure out what movie of his that I would review as a tribute to the original method actor. I thought of all those movies from early in his career that made him famous: A Streetcar Named Desire (1951), Viva Zapata! (1952), Julius Caesar (1953), and On the Waterfront (1954). 4 Oscar nods in as many years. How is that done?
Abiding by my own rules, all of the above and what is probably one of his most imitated and best remembered roles, Vito Corleone in Mario Puzo's The Godfather, are absolutely out of the question. Of course, I always wondered what he really thought of that movie since he refused the award the Academy thought fit to bestow upon him.
That was the thing with Brando, though. He could do that and get away with it. He could do anything, really. It wasn't that he was a hurricane. His power didn't erupt and destroy that way. He could, don't get me wrong, but I don't think that was it.
Corleone, for example, wasn't just a wise guy. And he's also not to be pigeon-holed as the "mobster with the heart of gold". He was a complex man: very sad, very sweet, and he loved his family. He loved them more than anything, and I believe that was the only lesson he wanted to pass on to them.
In the end, though, I don't think that's how I will remember Brando. If I am going to remember him at all, then it will be as he was at the end of his last movie, The Score (2001). His character, Max, is just sitting there at the bottom of an empty pool, laughing and laughing.
That puts a smile on my face.
And it's nice to go out with such an ingenious heist flick.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)