Beautiful Girls (1996)

Idea: Willie (Timothy Hutton) returns home to attend "the reunion" and to reassess his life during a reprieve from his girlfriend. As can only occur in such movies, he drinks away his time with his former high school gang, including Tommy (Matt Dillon), Mo (Noah Emmerich), and Paul (Michael Rappaport). Of course, Tommy and Paul are facing crises of their own, as Tommy must break off his affair with a married high school sweetheart (Lauren Holly) in order to keep his current girlfriend (Mira Sorvino) and Paul believes his long time lover (Martha Plimpton) to be having an affair of her own. Meanwhile, Willie forms a strong bond with Marty (Natalie Portman), his precocious 13 year-old next door neighbour.

Alright, so, in case it isn't clear, I don't think much of the premise. That's okay, though. Not every movie is necessarily all about plot, right? I tried to describe this movie to some friends recently, and all that came out was, "It's like Garden State."

I know that's a terrible comparison, esp. since this movie came out nearly a decade before. But all these movies are sort of the same, aren't they? This guy goes back to his home town, everyone is glad to see him and be his friend again, and he sorts out his problems in a very short time frame. It's the kind of thing that really only happens in movies, but we never fail to fall for it.

In any case, Scott Rosenberg's screenplay has a certain lack continuity to it but that doesn't diminish it's believability. Things come out of nowhere in real life, too, so you can't be too surprised with Rosie O'Donnell's inspired, if misplaced, rants. Even so, Rosenberg works better as a collaborator (e.g. High Fidelity) v. writing on his own (e.g. Gone in Sixty Seconds).

I don't care for Ted Demme's direction. Every movie of his that I have seen feels drawn out and sloppily put together.

And Hutton. Hutton's a talented actor in his own right, and I love the scenes that he shares with Portman. In this film, though, thinking back on his characterization and costume, he comes across as a poor man's John Cusack, which he is not.

I love Emmerich, though. He always seems like he'd be a great friend to have.

So would I recommend this movie? Yes.

Confusing, I know. The movie looks better if you view it as a collection of moments rather than a film in its entirety. To watch Rappaport go on about supermodels as "bottled hope" or to hear Uma Thurman give that "good night sweet girl" speech is well worth the rental fee.

Vacation Time (2004)

Premise: Alright, folks, I'm going to have to sign off for a while. Today I head to a mysterious land with no internet (i.e. my mom's house).

Believe me when I tell you that I will try to fangle a post whenever I go anywhere with internet/convince my mom that she needs internet desperately. I'm already working on the latter. I'll let you know how it turns out.

As a parting gift, I'll leave you with (and this is new innovation for you, gentle reader) my very first top 10 list. Yes siree, t-e-n 10.

Top 10 Qualities in a Leading Man (as in, lead actor in a film)

1. Dark hair, preferably curly
2. Large nose, but roman will also do
3. Talent
4. Sexy something or other
5. Integrity
6. Discerning taste, perferable but optional
7. A hint of tragedy
8. A keen sense of comedic timing, again optional
9. Intelligence, not optional
10. Compassion/Heroism

Feel free to throw out suggestions of who you think I am referring to with this list.

Gattaca (1997)

Short: Realizing that his free-born status will always prevent him from achieveing his goal travel through space, Vincent (Ethan Hawke) purchases the identity of Jerome (Jude Law), a man who's considered genetically perfect except that he's paraplegic. Vincent uses Jerome's identity to join Gattaca, an elite space program, where he meets Irene (Uma Thurman). During the investigation of a murder at Gattaca, one of Vincent's eye lashes is found only days before he is set to take off to a moon of Jupiter and threatens his entire future.

I was a little surprised when I realized that I haven't mentioned this movie before. I saw it when it came out (I was 14), and I fell in love with its style. Every shot, every costume, every set.

For some reason that is a bit beyond my understanding, in the future everything will go back to 1930s glam. To be honest, I can't wait for that to happen.

Cinematographer Slawomir Idziak captures the grace and elegance of that decade set against tragedy and on the brink of war with quiet patience.

Actually, now that I think about it, it makes of lot of sense to make constant, silent reference to the 30s. The descrepancy between the poor and the rich (the free-born and the genetically chosen) was shocking, and it impacted every area of their lives.

This movie is the first offering from writer-director Andrew Niccol. It seems a little odd that he would go after such a grand and simple story, but he carries it well. He went on to pen The Truman Show, which showcases his unusual perception of reality and his desire to question that which we rarely consider.

His direction osciallates beween showcasing the minutae of the efforts Vincent and Jerome must undertake and the overwhleming difficulty that Vincent faces as he gets closer and closer to achieving his life long goal. It's really sad, actually.

Hawke brings presence to his Vincent and a sense of urgency. Vincent's heart's been ticking a little too long, and Hawke makes sure the audience feels that way.

I wouldn't describe Irene as a difficult role as Thurman has little more to do than look beautiful and occassionally confused. She does both those things well enough, so I feel no need to further comment or crticize.

I rather enjoy Law here. I find with Law that the longer he is around, the less I like him. It's possible that he's been breaking the cardinal rule of reading what's written about you. Despite Jerome's flaws, I feel genuinely heartbroken over his life, and I attribute that reaction to Law's unrepetant arrogance and intensity. Really, he should go after more roles like this one.

One of the film's strongest points is it supporting cast. The viewer is treated to fine performances from Xander Berkley, Loren Dean, Elias Koteas, Gore Vidal, Blair Underwood, Tony Shalhoub, Ernest Borgnine, and Alan Arkin. Man, just loking at that list makes me giddy to see this movie again.

This movie maybe isn't for you if you have pacing issues, as it is on the slow side. Other than that, I highly recommend it if you, like me, like to question the immediate future as well as the past.

The Watcher (2000)

Outline: Haunted by an unsolved case, Joel Campbell (James Spader) moves to Chicago to escape his past. He seeks help from a therapist, Dr. Polly Beilman (Marisa Tomei), who becomes the murder’s (Keanu Reeves) target when he follows Joel to the windy city, attempting to recreate what they lost.

Oh, 2000. How the mighty have fallen.

Of course, I really brought this one on myself. Very often, affection for one actor leads you directly in the path of another who sucks.

I actually find Reeves mind-boggling. He appears to have made a career out of little to no skill, and it’s an incredibly lucrative one at that. For all he’s worth, he’s done but two good movies in his day: My Own Private Idaho and Much Ado About Nothing.

And that’s what boggles the mind. Shakespeare! Of all the things in the world he could be actually good it, it’s the Bard! So, the real question becomes why does he insist on torturing us with all this other insipid crap?

Obviously, in this case, I was drawn to Spader. Mostly I was drawn to the idea of Spader in a Hollywood movie instead of his usual indie fare.

This choice, I can assure you, was a mistake. Spader, usually alive with sexual tension, sparkling sarcasm, and oozing intelligence, is wooden here at best. I don’t blame him, though.

I blame Joe Charbanic (director), David Ellis (writer), and Clay Ayers (writer). They’ve done nothing since this waste, and I’m not in the least bit surprised. Unrealistic dialogue, a sorry excuse for a plot, and vacant characterization isn’t really the way to get yourself noticed. Well, at least not the way to get anyone to return your phone calls.

Do you know that my only consolation is after I watch a movie this bad? I know that I’ll never make the mistake of watching it again. That’s it – that’s all I have.

How else could I tolerate a complete waste of the talented and beautiful Tomei? I mean, they actually manage to make her look unattractive.

And they made me watch Reeves dance. That’s just torture in and of itself.

Quills (2000)

Summary: A highly fictionalized telling of the last few weeks of the life of the Marquis de Sade (Geoffrey Rush), who was imprisoned in Chareton, a home for the criminally insane, during the Napoleonic era. The film focuses on what happens when Napoleon discovers that the Marquis is still publishing from within prison. Dr. Royer-Collard (Michael Caine) is brought in to appraise the situation, much to the chagrin of L’Abbé du Coulmier (Joaquin Phoenix), who runs the asylum. Both men being to suspect the nature of the relationship between the Marquis and Madeleine (Kate Winslet), a laundry lass.

Serious, 2000 is where it’s at. Or it was where it was? Hmmm.

The highly fictionalized bit can be difficult to sort out. Suffice it to say that the characters are real, much of the events are real, but what happens between the characters is exaggerated to say the least.

I, for one, am very pleased with the fiction that Doug Wright added to his screenplay, which is based on his play. He claims that he had read about all of the Marquis’ quills being taken away to stop him from writing, and the whole story sort of grew from there. He carefully crafted characters that are as real as the air we breathe, putting them in alternatively exquisite and crushing scenes.

Another element I appreciate about Wright’s screenplay was his decision not to make L’Abbé a four foot tall hunchback, as he was in real life. I don’t have anything against 4” hunchbacks (e.g. my Nana), but I much prefer Phoenix.

Phoenix appears in three movies that were released in the year 2000. Having seen all three, I can honestly say that he turns in near-virtuoso performances in all of them. I say near because although I believe him to be a truly talented actor, I am very wary of applying to term virtuoso to anyone.

Here we see his capacity for romance and heroism, which goes against the grain of the villains he plays in the other two movies. The role of a priest in love is very much one fraught with victim-hood and intrapersonal conflict, both of which Phoenix conveys convincingly through deeply hooded eyes and hushed tones. His pale skin also makes him seem always slightly sickly, which conjures up images of sleepless nights and inner turmoil.

Also, like it or not, priests are often made to be very sexy in movies. Sex appeal is another important dimension that Phoenix brings to the role.

I did not, however, appreciate Wright’s choice to have Rush naked for a good portion of the film, and I did not appreciate Philip Kaufman’s (director) choice of full frontal nudity. I believe that in films it is often what you don’t see, not what you see, that counts. Sexual tension, not sex, is sexy. That which you think you see is much more frightening than any sight. And you can very obviously tell the audience that someone is nude without showing them.

Other than that, Kaufman’s direction is stellar. For all his critical acclaim, I’ve not seen a single picture of his besides this one. I should, though, as he infuses this one with wit, whimsy, and gothic suffering. It’s odd, isn’t it, that a film set in the early 1800s feels like it belongs in the dark ages because of the plot and location where the story enfolds?

Rush attacks his role with engulfing passion. Wright described the character as a “demented peacock”, and it’s clear that that description directed Rush’s performance. His Marquis is self-obsessed, arrogant, and never repentant. When he finally does collapse in tears, they’re almost wrong coming from him.

Winslet’s take on a servant in turbulent times is fantastic, right down to her adopted cockney accent. It’s a wonder that she can simultaneously appear worldly and innocent. And the sexual tension between Winslet and Phoenix so tangible that even the audience feels a little on edge watching them.

Caine as a villain is something else. I’m not overly familiar with his work, but I’ve always thought of him as a kindly old grandfather figure, much as he appears at the end of The Muppet Christmas Carol. Here he is downright evil, and I found it downright chilling. I’d rather not see him that way again.

I suppose I can’t be critical of the film for being graphic, though, since it is in keeping with the Marquis’ work. In fact, I might be tempted to say that this is a film the Marquis himself would be proud of.

Control Room (2004)

Subject: A documentary look at Al Jazeera, the top rated news channel in the Arab world, specifically their unique coverage of the War on Iraq.

And with a great tagline – “Different channels. Different truths.”

This film marks the second opus from Jehane Noujaim, co-writer and director of Startup.com. Here she (I think that’s a woman’s name) teams up with newcomer Julia Bacha for poignant and startling results.

Startling, why, you may ask? When I first told my mom about this movie’s focus on Al Jazeera’s coverage of the war, she enquired, “And how slanted it is?” I had to explain to her that they were the only station that would risk telling the truth about the true effects of the war on Iraq.

Noujaim pulls no punches in showing us the devastating effects suffered by the Iraqis through Al Jazeera’s lens. Capturing what the audience saw and what they missed, the film smoothly balances the events both as they happened and the interpretations of those who observe them from a safe distance, including the U.S.’s deliberate murder of their correspondent in Baghdad.

Without narration or interpretation, Noujaim follows a variety of characters over the course of several months. One of the most painful stories to watch is that of Lt. Josh Rushing as he goes from innocent solider on some sort of news detail to a master of spin.

The film, despite the subject matter, doesn’t lack for humour with the BBC Correspondent lamenting to Hassan Ibrahim, one of Al Jazeera’s top people, than all BBC people end up with Al Jazeera and the NBC correspondent claiming that Al Jazeera has all the best food.

And, more importantly, the film inspired some interesting debate and discussion afterwards, including Emily’s likening America’s invasion of Iraq to China invading the U.S. to free them from their selected leader. It was great.

Alright, I’m just going to come out and say it - Control Room is a better documentary than Fahrenheit 9/11. I feel that the comparison is fair because they both explore issues surrounding the same war.

The difference of import here is the filmmaker’s style. Michael Moore never attempts to be objective. I love that as a viewer, but I can see how it wouldn’t bode well with a critic. He basically gets an idea into his head, and then he finds facts to back himself up. He’s lucked out so far because he’s right, and he can prove it in an interesting and hysterical way.

Noujaim, on the other hand, while her film relies on interviews, presents her film with more of a “fly-on-the-wall” feeling to it. There a sense of irony to almost everything you see, but she isn’t as heavy handed with it as Moore was in Fahrenheit.

So, is this an important film to see? Well, that depends. How important is the truth to you?

Garden State (2004)

Premise: For his mother's funeral, Andrew 'Large' Largeman (Zach Braff) returns home after a nine year absence. He decides to simultaneously take a vacation from his meds, which means he must avoid his father (Ian Holm), a psychiatrist who prescribed them in the first place. Large reconnects with an old friend, Mark (Peter Sarsgaard), and he meets a pathological liar, Sam (Natalie Portman), who, by her own admission, isn't very good at it.

Really good. This film is really good. I just wanted to fall into it, which is a rare feeling in a film nowadays.

Braff presents a triple treat in this film as writer, director, and star. And he almost, almost makes it. He is a talented actor, and his screenplay is near unbelievable from a first timer. It’s so highly quotable and so very genuine. Both are admirable and precious qualities in writing.

Portman’s character, while endearing as a fictional person, would be one of the most annoying people in real life. Portman shines right through, and the film is the better for her in the role.

Braff is incredibly well supported by Holm and Sarsgaard. They both bite into their roles with quiet hunger, simply and powerfully providing the kind of background that we depend on.

And the soundtrack is phenomenal. I’m making my own version of it right now. You’ll have to hear it to believe it.

Are you yet wondering why I said that Braff almost makes it? Where does he fall short?

His direction. His direction style is too gimmicky, too much like the sitcom that made him famous. And he goes for the big Hollywood ending, which basically nullifies any ingenuity that may have come before it. Does he have “a genuine filmmaker’s eye”, as I have heard?

Perhaps. Only a second offering will prove or refute that state. He has a voice, but that’s not enough.

We need to hear it.

Ghost World (2000)

Idea: Enid (Thora Birch) and Rebecca's (Scarlett Johansson) post-high school plans are derailed after Enid plays a prank on a stranger, Seymour (Steve Buscemi), and she becomes obsessed with her victim.

Okay, the term victim isn't to be taken too seriously here. Her prank doesn't land him in the hospital or anything of that sort. It's just a little cruel. Emotionally cruel.

Ah, 2000. It sparkles for me yet.

So, not too long ago, it was suggested that I review this movie. For whatever reason, I put it off. Now I can't remember why I put it off, so I figure it must be time to write about it.

I think Buscemi was born to portray characters like Seymour. His physiognomy suggests "geek" to you, and he has made a highly successful career out of it. In addition, he can play wild and dangerous characters, so he really makes you wonder. Seymour is as depressed as he is eccentric, and you divide your time between feeling sorry for him and just thinking he's pathetic.

I dig Johansson in this movie as it is before she became something of an It-girl. She's justifiably popular - beautiful and a natural on the screen. Even so, I am always wary of an It-girl. It takes years to shed that image, and it isn't until you shed it that the audience can see if you are an actor of substance.

Oh, Birch. Love, love, love Birch. She's one of the few child stars who seems to have turned out alright. What's more, she's turned out with a sort of dignified presence on the screen. She appears perfectly at home in a depressed veil of self-consciousness.

Director Terry Zwigoff has little/little of merit to his name. He's a bit of a nervous director. I'm not entirely certain what he's holding back or for that reason, but you can feel it. That's never a good thing in a movie.

He also co-wrote the movie with the comic's writer, Daniel Clowes. How accurate is the movie compared to its source? I don't know. I'd like to believe that being penned with the same ink makes it pretty darn accurate.

This movie's got funk. I'd bare that in mind if you were considering renting it. Funk's not for everyone, but it's great to have when you want it.

Ghost (1990)

Plan: When Sam (Patrick Swayze) is murdered, he decides to stay behind and look after Molly (Demi Moore). He begins to uncover a conspiracy behind his murder involving his best friend, Carl (Tony Goldwyn). Sam enlists the aid of a psychic, Oda Mae Brown (Whoopi Goldberg), to protect Molly and solve the mystery of his seemingly senseless murder.

Funny saying, isn't it? "Senseless" murder? I mean, what murders make sense anyway?

In any case, let's look at this different perspective on 1990. Apparently, in this case, people in 1990 thought some very strange things.

For instance, they thought that Swayze was a talented actor whom lots of women wanted to sleep with. I'm sure lots of women did at the time, so I'll let that last bit slide.

Actually, the more I think about . . . even though I'm tempted to cast him aside as a pretty boy puff piece, he can be pretty good. I guess he's as good as the role he's given, though, and in this case, Bruce Joel Rubin's inventive but melodramatic screenplay gives him little to work with.

They also appear to have thought that Moore was much the same. Again, it appears they are right about the mass sex appeal part, but I really don't buy her as an actress. The only thing she's managed to perfect is the single tear drop. Yes, she's a very believable crier.

Not too sure what to say about director Jerry Zucker. He doesn't make a lot of movies, and I think we are the better for it.

What I doubt they banked on was Goldberg. Goldberg, in case you didn't know, won a good deal of awards for her performance of the swindler who suddenly discovers she has a genuine gift that comes with a brand new set of responsibilities, including the Academy Award for Best Supporting Actress. She is, in my opinion, a ridiculously talented actress, so ludicrous and quietly dramatic.

Truly, her performance makes the whole experience worthwhile.

Except for the effects or the general plot line. Oh, stupid, crappy, effects! Why didn't they just use real shadows and leave it at that? If Hitchcock taught us anything, it was that what you don't see is infinitely more frightening than what you can see.

I can't say I'd recommend this one. You are probably better off without it.

Pump Up the Volume (1990)

Plot: Mark (Christian Slater) run a pirate radio station from his basement for his own amusement. He discovers that everyone is listening to what he has to say, and, more importantly, they are taking him seriously. All this attentions winds his DJ persona, Hard Harry, in deeper and deeper trouble as the teens of his small town start to act based on his suggestions.

Ha- this movie makes me think of two things.
1) Remember your Christian Slater phase? I make that statement very generally because everyone had one. He was so cute, and passionate, and a little bit shy, yet highly sexual, and ridden (or so it seemed) with genuine angst. It was hard not to fall for him.
2) Allan Moyle is just the best. He makes the best disillusioned teen movies I have ever seen. He is also a contender for best Canadian director, although I understand his practices to be somewhat suspect.

Honestly, who doesn't like this movie? Like all Moyle's movies, he manages to sneak in these occasionally subtle dissenting views into what appears to be a teen sex comedy. Tricky, that's what this movie can be.

Also, possibly the most preachy of his films, but I think I'll let it slide in exchange for the presentation he gives us. He just knows how to have fun. He's like a girl that way.

Actually, the more I think about it, the more Moyle seems to me like the unconventional version of Cameron Crowe. I wonder if what I just said would be considered sacrilege.

I'm going to have to give props to the soundtrack, mostly for including Leonard Cohen.

I'm really not doing this movie justice. You're just going to have to see it for yourself. It's hilarious and smart and sad and special.

And real, although it is about some rather odd activities. But the approach to them is as real as it gets.

Only You (1994)

Story: Faith (Marisa Tomei) has always believed that she was destined to be with Damien Bradley. The only trouble is that she’s never met Damien Bradley. As her wedding to another man approaches, Faith panics. She and her sister-in-law, Kate (Bonnie Hunt), decide to take off on a trip to clear her mind. While at the airport, they overhear Damon Bradley paged and follow him Rome. While in Rome, Faith meets an amazing man (Robert Downey, Jr.), but is he her destiny?

Hahahahahahaha. I was recently told that I give the best plot summaries. It was obviously a sarcastic comment, and I think I know why.

That aside, this really is a good movie. It’s one of those movies I discovered on a Sunday afternoon with my mom after I had finished my homework. Those movies generally are the best, I can assure you, for that is when I saw, for the first time, both Gone with the Wind and The Godfather.

It’s also one of those shocking movies. Shocking because you never really expect chick flicks to be all that good (although you do expect them to be hilarious, or so I am told), but also shocking because it’s directed by Norman Jewison.

I mean, Norman Jewison! The best Canadian director to date! Oh, let’s be honest, David Cronenberg is nuts, and Atom Egoyan is a little too full of himself. Jewison’s all we got. Besides, how many other Canadian directors can you name?

And then there’s Hunt. Any movie is made exponentially better by the fact that she is one of the best comedienne’s known today and one of the best supporting actresses, which are two of the toughest gigs out there.

It helps that I love both Tomei and Downey, Jr. I don’t care what problems he has with cocaine, he’s still hilarious and lucid! He can be so alternatively snarky and silly. It’s impossible hate him at the end of any film.

This movie is, sadly, Diane Drake’s only feature film script. Listen to her name, people. It belongs on the screen. Or possibly the name of a private detective. Preferably both.

Basically speaking, it’s hard to resist this movie once you get past the whole “destiny” business. But I’m sure you can.

Get past it, that is. Not resist. Do not attempt to resist.

Rushmore (1998)

Outline: Max Fischer’s (Jason Schwartzman) joie de vivre is attending Rushmore, a prestigious all boys prep school. He is placed on sudden death academic probation about the same time he falls for the school’s first grade teacher, Miss Cross (Olivia Williams), and forms an unlikely friendship with the depressed father of some of his schoolmates, Mr. Blume (Bill Murray).

Back in the day, this film opened to critical acclaim, and I really wanted to see it. When I finally did, I was highly amused, but I must confess that those I saw it with didn’t entirely get it.

I bought it this week-end, and I watched it again. I kept wondering, as I was still highly amused, do I get it better now than I did before?

I decided that when it comes to Wes Anderson (director and co-writer with Owen Wilson), it’s difficult to tell how amused you are because his movies aren’t what you would laugh out loud hilarious. The way they all seem to deal with these small, insane stories over short periods of time suggests that they all start as novellas. They’re actually reminiscent of Nikolay Gogol, the Russian absurdist.

Anderson and Wilson always manage to prevent you from wondering “Wtf?” as the plot progresses in more and more complicated and confusing ways. They make sure that you never question anything that happens.

This is Schwartzman’s first film, and it seems as though Anderson plucked him and his talents little nerdish frame out of thin air.

Murray is obviously Anderson’s main man (they recently completed a third movie together), and I don’t doubt why. Equally adept with comedy as he is with drama, he brings the sadness and quirkiness necessary to such a role.

I don’t particularly care for nor care about Williams in this movie. I feel like I could have been any woman with a British accent in the role.

Yes, I believe I would categorize this movie as absurd rather than a comedy. Fun, yes, but not the kind of funny you might be used to.

To Die For (1995)

Short: Suzanne Stone Maretto (Nicole Kidman) has always believed she is destined for a life on TV. When she decides that her husband, Larry (Matt Dillon), is standing in her way, she enlists three 15 year-old followers, Jimmy (Joaquin Phoenix), Russell (Casey Affleck), and Lydia (Allison Folland), to take care of him for her.

Not, to my knowledge, based on a true story. Feel free to challenge this statement.

Blockbuster claims that this film is a “drama suspense”. Not really, I would say.

It’s satirical, and there are definitely elements of drama to it, as well as comedy. I didn’t buy the suspense, though. You get the feeling while you are watching it that it is almost something. Almost a drama, almost a comedy, almost a satire, almost good.

But never really enough of anything.

Here’s how I’ve decided that Gus Van Sant directs. “I’m Gus Van Sant! If you don’t like it, I don’t care ‘cause I’m Gus Van Sant.” Basically speaking, a little too self absorbed to be a worthwhile director.

Luckily he’s got a great script from Buck Henry, a man who knows a thing or two about satire, and one helluva performance from Kidman. I remember this movie as being the first were suddenly critics were saying, “Nicole Kidman! An actress! Not just Tom Cruise’s wife!”, which is great since only 50% of them can really act.

Phoenix also won himself some attention with this move, his return to feature films after a four year absence. He’s so good here – quiet, jittery, naïve. It’s hard not to like him or feel sorry for him.

I was also happy to see that Danny Elfman scored the movie since I like him so much. He’s finally getting the attention he deserves, and I couldn’t be happier for him.

Ned Kelly (2003)

Summary: The (mostly) true story of an Irishman in the Australian outback, Ned Kelly (Heath Ledger), whose legend grows and grows long after he dies. The film follows the events of nearly ten years of exploits with his gang comprised on his brother, Dan (Laurence Kinlan); his brother’s best friend, Steven Hart (Phil Barantini); and Ned’s best friend, Joe Byrne (Orlando Bloom).

See, despite the fact that he robbed banks and killed people. Ned Kelly is regarded as something of a national hero. Although, it is a nation of criminals, so we can’t be surprised, can we?

But honestly, in every telling, there is the sense that Kelly was generally wrongfully accused and simply found his own way to stand up to the injustices of the system that oppressed him.

That certainly is the sense that John M. McDonagh’s screenplay based on Robert Drewe’s novel, Our Sunshine. He makes Ned not necessarily a charismatic leader but a man driven by the passion of his beliefs. It is that, not words or actions, that truly draw people to him.

Gregor Jordan directs the story from much the same angle. He very rarely lingers on any one detail for too long, except for a misguided attempt at a romantic subplot involving a wasted Naomi Watts. I failed to see the point of it or her in the movie.

Ledger and Bloom. How many would have guessed that a) there would exist a fairly serious historical drama starring two teen heart-throbs or b) that I would watch it.

Well, it does, and I did. So there.

And I liked it. They’ve both got it, the real goods, but they neither seem to know how to channel it or where to go next.

Although, to be honest, I find it hard to believe that that many people want to shag Bloom. Maybe if I was still 12 and preferred feminine men, but, frankly, this movie pushes that image a bit too far.

Who would have guessed that I would talk about such a film on my birthday. Did anyone see this coming? Anyone?

Before Sunset (2004)

Premise: Jesse (Ethan Hawke) and Celine (Julie Delpy) meet up again in Paris nine years later at the end of Jesse’s French book tour, where he is promoting a book that is strangely similar to that night they spend together all those years ago. Jesse has about an hour and a half before he must fly back to America, and he and Celine decide to spend it catching up.

So, in case it isn’t clear, it’s the sequel to Before Sunrise, and it occurs in real time.

Also, if you thought the first film was dialogue heavy, you have no idea. The film is a constant conversation, free of nervous pauses and, well, action. They simply wander the streets of Paris, winding away their time with a contrasted sense of urgency and intimacy.

I’d love to fill you in on all the details of if they did meet up again six months later and what happened, but that would be a betrayal.

This film, in addition to being a sequel that outdoes the first, can be almost agony to watch. Richard Linklater (director and co-writer) gives you the sense that you are watching something frighteningly private. You are absolutely glued in place yet oddly wondering if you should look away as though you are inappropriately watching something you really shouldn’t be looking at.

Hawke, Delpy, and Linklater co-writing this sequel together was a stroke of genius. The scene where Celine and Jesse ask each other if their appearances have changed is one of the most telling in the movie.

Hawke is possessed of an animal magnetism that his nervous school boy lacked in the first movie, and Delpy brings newfound sensuality to her character.

The true test of their mettle is the fragility that their characters now possess. I’m often told that youth live their lives as though they believe that they are invincible. At 32, their characters have found their mortality, and they fill it with an immediacy that is heartbreaking to consider.

Like all good films, the air is electric with conversation and possibilities afterwards. You walk into the film not knowing what you are getting yourself into, and you leave with the exact same feeling.

Quiz Show (1994)

Plot: A dramatized telling of the true story of the how quiz shows on NBC were rigged in the 1950s. (Ken Jennings, anyone?) Dan Enright (David Paymer) has the answers feed to well-to-do Charles Van Doren (Ralph Fiennes), who comes from a respected intellectual family, in order to get reigning Jewish champ Herbie Stempel (John Turturro) off the air. As Van Doren’s winning streak grows longer and longer and his winnings more and more substantial, Stempel raises a case that the shows are fixed, which catches the attention of Dick Goodwin (Rob Morrow), a hot shot lawyer buried in the sub-committee on legislative oversight.

This movie is one that I knew about, then forgot about, then was reminded about in a recent interview with Robert Redford (director).

I’m iffy about Redford as a director. As an actor he’s a heavy weight, and he’s plenty risky. But as a director he comes across as downright cautious. Obviously restraint is an important characteristic in director. Redford takes it too far. Directing requires a certain recklessness that this movie lacks. Everything feels weighed and measured.

It’s too much. A bit pompous, even.

Much like Paul Attanasio’s script. I enjoyed watching it, but looking back makes me feel like saying, “Lay off it, would ya?” He’s like a dog with a bone, “We’re going to get TV! TV’s corrupt! The Gentiles are keeping everyone down!”

Okay, yes, there was a conspiracy and a racist one at that. This leads me to my next point:

What does it say when you cast two prominent Jewish actors as the main (anti-Semitic) conspirators? I love Paymer and Hank Azaria (is he Jewish? Am I wrong here?), but what was that supposed to mean? Does that make any sense to anyone else?

Turturro crackles with neurotic energy, and Morrow’s Goodwin is well paced. I’m going to assume that it’s some historical detail to have a cigar hanging out of his mouth half the time, impeding his speech. It’s worth the wait for him to remove it.

If I had known Van Doren, I would have said that Fiennes nailed him. Bright, intelligent, so willing to please, so over-shadowed by his family. I can’t imagine trying to reconcile your morals with your money. I suppose that’s why he looks so shiny all the time.

Redford seems dead set on making everyone look like they are in a fifties movie – the hair, the make-up. It’s too much.

The Village (2004)

Premise: Set in a small village surrounded by Covington Woods, a place where “those we do not speak of” keep the citizens in constant terror, the residents of the village have always had a “gentle understanding with the creatures” that they will not enter the woods, and the creatures will not attack. As the simple Noah Percy’s (Adrien Brody) entrance into the woods prompts greater and greater attacks on the village, Lucius Hunt makes ever pressing demands to cross the woods into “the towns” to gather medicines, much to the chagrin of his mother (Sigourney Weaver) and the awe of the town’s mayor, Mr. Walker (William Hurt) and his daughter, Ivy (Bryce Dallas Howard).

I apologize for the long plot description. As anyone who has seen any M. Night Shyamalan (writer/director) film will know, that plot description will be blown to smithereens at least twice over as the movie progresses.

I say that this is Shyamalan’s best work to date. I understand (although I have not read) that the critics are divided on this one, and I maintain my sentiment. Not only did he reiterate that he is ready to challenge Alfred Hitchcock’s mantle as the master of terror, he also managed to tell a compelling love story. I didn’t even know he was capable of such a thing.

And it was quite a sexy one at that. I never thought of Joaquin Phoenix as sexy before (usually scary and/or pathetic, e.g. Gladiator, The Yards), but I can definitely say that there was some crazy chemistry between him and Howard, who turns in an astonishing performance for her fourth movie.

On the other hand, I feel very at odds about Brody. The more I see of him, the less I understand him. No one can doubt that he earned his Oscar for The Pianist, but I’m not sure what he’s doing here.

There is, however, scene between him and Phoenix in Lucius’ workshop that is stellar.

Weaver is always a pleasure to see, and she is supported well by others such as Cherry Jones, Brendan Gleeson, Celia Jones, Michael Pitt, and Judy Greer.

Hurt, on the other hand, tries way too hard.

James Newton Howard, as in all Shyamalan’s films, curdles your blood with music. After all, we would feel very little while watching films if they weren’t scored.

You should see it in theatres. Well, not exactly.

You should experience it in a theatre.

The Grifters (1990)

Idea: After Roy (John Cusack) runs into some difficulty in one of his short term cons, his mother, Lilly (Angelica Houston), reappears in his life after an eight year absence. Lilly doesn’t care for Roy’ girlfriend, Myra (Annette Benning), who wants Roy to join her in long term cons, while Lilly’s looking for a way out for the both of them.

This movie is sick. Don’t get me wrong – it’s very good. But it is also sick. Very, very sick.

It’s actually quite exceptionally good, and you don’t get to the real sick part until the end. A dark seduction would be the best way to describe it. Donald E. Westlake’s (writer) dark seduction of the audience.

The whole movie’s a grift, so to speak. You never really know who is conning who or to what end.

Stephen Frears (director) breasts his cards while making it seem off-the-cuff. I really do love his direction. He sets up his characters on a pedestal, so he can revel in knocking them down. I suppose that’s kind of sick, too, isn’t? And a bit of a con.

I think anyone who has seen pretty much anything knows what great actresses Houston and Benning are. Do I wish that Benning were a little less comfortable with her body in his movie? Sure. Do I understand why Houston’s hair is dyed white? No.

Other than that, near flawless performances. I love that catty little smile Benning gets, and the irrepressible pride of Houston’s character. Esp. when it all come crumbling down around her.

After seeing Cusack in yet another movie where he shocks the hell out of me, I cannot understand why more isn’t made of him as an actor. Honestly, why?

Although this is a sick, sick movie, I’m going to have to recommend it. If you think about, filmmaking is the biggest grift there is, so you shouldn’t be surprised when the pull the wool over your eyes.