Hope Springs (2003)

Short: A depressed artist, Colin (Colin Firth) heads to small-town America to heal his broken heart after his fiancee, Vera (Minnie Driver), leaves him. In Hope, he meets a beautiful young woman, Mandy (Heather Graham).

Hmm. I've been thinking for nearly a day now about how to categorize this movie. It's just sort of flat. Maybe a little stale. I don't know. It never really gets exciting. I took this media theory class, and one of the readings theorized that the tension in a movie/television programme lay in the audience's desire to see the plot continue and the problem to be resolved. I guess you could say that I didn't care one way or the other when I watched this movie. I knew it would be completely resolved by the end of it, so it didn't matter to me how or when it got resolved. In every movie you anticipate the resolution (the movie has to end somehow), but, in this case, there was nothing to compel you to desire it.

A problem that I attribute directly to the writing and directing of Mark Herman. I've never seen anything else that he's done, and, frankly, I don't want to see it now. He basically has the camera sit there, almost as though he's saying, "well, here are some people. Sure is some stuff going on here." It's like watching your friends, only not as interesting or compelling, because you care about your friends.

I don't blame Firth, who is charming, funny, and sexy in this movie, because he does his best to work with what he has been given. Unfortunately, he hasn't been given much.

Also, it's the first movie that I didn't want to hit Graham in the face while watching, but I mostly attribute that to Firth. I bet it's hard to act poorly when he is around.

Oh, and I've always liked Driver. I think she's hilariously catty when she's being cruel.

If I were you, I wouldn't bother with this one. There's no point really. It's based on a book by Charles Webb. I suppose that might be good. Might.

The Karate Kid (1984)

Plan: After Mr. Miyagi (Pat Morita) saves him from getting worked over, Daniel LaRusso (Ralph Macchio) gets the master to agree to teach him karate. Miyagi teaches him about much more than fighting. Oh, and Daniel has a girlfriend, Ali Mills (Elizabeth Shue).

1984! Can you believe it? That blows my mind! I feel really old now that I have read that.

Here's another fun fact: Macchio was 22 when he made the movie. His character was 16, he looked about 14, but he was 22. That makes the karate kid 43. As if. As if.

John G. Avildsen apparently likes to direct movies where people hit each other. I mean, don't get me wrong, with Rocky to his credit, he does it really well, but doesn't that seem a little weird? I think it's weird. In any case, his direction is a lot of fun, showing that he doesn't take anything (except hitting people) very seriously. It's a good thing in a movie as campy as this one.

As for Robert Mark Kamen, the writer, well, he likes movies where people hit each other as well (e.g. The Transporter and Kiss of the Dragon). His dialogue is a bit over the top when it comes to the cheesy factor. Actually, I really liked Kiss of the Dragon, but that's beside the point.

The point is that Pat is the best part of the movie. I think everyone should know a wise old man like Pat. Pat had all the best lines, and no one else really compares to him in the movie. Okay, maybe Mrs. LaRusso (Randee Heller). She was a pretty cool mom.

Actually, now that I think about it, the song is best part of the movie. Seriously, it goes "You're the best/Around/Nothing's gonna ever keep you down" over and over again. That song is awesome.

So, boiled down, you missed out on your childhood if you are part of my generation and haven't seen this movie. It was on pretty much every Saturday when we were young, and I know there was at least one rainy afternoon where your mom made you stay in. If there wasn't, then you need to pick one to watch it now. You will learn so much.

Bob Roberts (1992)

Summary: A fictional documentary view of a right wing wall street folk singer, Bob Roberts (Tim Robbins), running for Senate in 1990. A lone leftist reporter, Bugs Raplin (Giancarlo Esposito), seeks to unearth his corruption and connections with the drug trade. Tons of stars show up as various reporters.

So, remember when I was telling you about Cradle Will Rock, and how openly leftist celebrity couple Robbins and Susan Sarandon are? Well, if you have any doubts as to their politcal stripe, check out Robbins' writing and directorial debut. So, so very funny and sad. I find there is at times, especially times like these ones, something very sorrowful about satire. I think the sadness hits when you realize that the only reason the ideas or events the satire shines the spotlight on are entirely true. When the day comes when these things are no longer an exaggeration, you can help but tear up while you are smiling.

In any case, you have to watch this movie if only for the songs that Roberts sings. They kill me. The documentarian (Brian Murray) captures all these people singing along to the most horrifying lyrics. It's truly hilarious.

Robbins and Giancarlo are excellent. I don't know what else could be said about Robbins, and Giancarlo brings new light to a fiery and obsessive reporter.

Plus, I also have a good time going, "Hey! Hey!" every time I recognize someone in a movie. It's a fun game.

I suppose, in the end, it's best to keep abreast of both politics and the satire thereof as they can be equally informative. Sometimes the more the latter than the former.

Angel (1999-2004)

Brief: A centuries old vampire with a soul, Angel (David Boreanaz), leaves his star-crossed lover behind and heads to L.A. to fight the good fight. Along the way he joins forces with Doyle (Glenn Quinn), a half demon who has visions; Cordelia (Charisma Carpenter), whom Doyle passes the visions to before he dies; Wesley (Alexis Denisof), a former watcher turned “rogue demon hunter”; Gunn (J. August Richards), a homeless young man who takes on vampires every night; Lorne (Andy Hallett), a demon who can read people’s future when they sing; and Fred (Amy Archer), a physicist whom Angel rescues from a demon dimension. They spend four seasons fighting the evil law firm of Wolfram & Hart, and the fifth and final season sees them inheriting the firm, as well as another vampire with a soul, Spike (James Marsters).

Okay, if you were thinking for even a second that I wouldn’t comment on the end of one of my favourite shows, you were sorely mistaken. And, yes, for the many of you who did not care for the show, it has ended. There is rumoured to be one or more made-for-TV movie(s) in the works to bring to a conclusion what enfolded last night, and has been unfolding for eight years, but we’ll have to wait and see.

And, no, there is not a problem with my math. We were introduced to Angel in the first episode of Buffy the Vampire Slayer. He was only supposed to stick around for a handful of episodes, but the intense chemistry between Sarah Michelle Gellar and Boreanaz garnered him a more permanent home on the show and, combined with his talent, eventually his own show.

Besides being filled with a truly talented cast, crisp writing, and a unique concept, what made the show so powerful and addictive was the realism of it all. I’m not talking about computer generated imagery, and I’m not saying that I now believe that vampires, demons, werewolves, and witches walk amongst us. What made it so real was that Joss Whedon (creator and gifted writer/director) never tried to convince you that any of it was truly possible. Instead, the show was based around how real people would react if these things were real. In addition, the mythical storyline was often a metaphor for something very real and personal (e.g. When Buffy and Angel have sex for the first time, Angel loses his soul and his love for her with it. This is akin to “I slept with this guy, and now he doesn’t call me any more.”)

And what did this all mean? Character development. Yes, there was usually the big bad that had to be taken down in every episode and for every season, but there were so many underlying issues in the personal lives of the characters that were often juxtaposed with the chaos around them. The decision in seasons three and four to give Angel something that he could never have – a son, Connor (Vincent Kartheiser) - was a stroke of genius. Those two seasons were the best of the show, showcasing incredible growth in both Angel and the rest of the cast. The character that always stands out for me is Wesley, mostly because he was THE BEST!, but also because his character went from being Angel’s most trusted advisor to his bitter enemy (and back again) as we watched all of Wesley’s former friends cut him off one by one. Of course, because someone has to die, Wesley was killed fighting in the final episode.

Also, although I was shocked an appalled at first, killing Fred and placing a powerful demon-goddess, Illyria, in her body turned out to be a great chance to show off Archer’s skill.

So, yes, this season often sacrificed story arcs for stand alone episodes. And the episodes often came across as “What trouble it is to run an evil law firm and try to make it good.” So it goes. Five years is a good run, and the end delivered an emotional wallop.

But I don’t feel like this is the end. Many issues remain unresolved (mostly about Angel and Spike), and a movie could give the show the send-off it deserves.

Down with Love (2003)

Idea: After a journalist assigned to interview her continually blows her off, feminist author Barbara Novak (Renee Zellweger) decides to make her manifesto, Down with Love, a bestseller and refuses swinging investigative reporter Catcher Block (Ewan McGregor) an interview. Then she goes on national television to tell women everywhere that he is the epitome of the man to avoid. Not to be undone by a woman, Catcher hatches a scheme to make Barbara fall in love with him and reveal her hypocrisy to the world. Oh, New York City in 1962.

A throwback to the Rock Hudson/Doris Day romantic comedies of the sixties, the characterization in this movie is top notch. Although this movie is writing team Eve Ahlert and Dennis Drake’s silver screen debut, they sure have done their homework. The movie is littered with all the wit, warmth, and sex appeal Hudson and Day used to infuse their movies with. The two of them working together was charm personified, and they played it to the hilt.

McGregor and Zellweger do their best to bring that campy and comfortable feel back the big screen. McGregor manages to mix in Sean Connery’s James Bond’s devil may care attitude and philandering with Hudson’s confidence and zeal, and the mix is as charming as it is incendiary. Zellweger’s a queen of both comedy and drama, and she does Day better than Day herself because her character isn’t reduced to tears as Day so often was. Unfortunately, their strong performances can’t save the movie from the over-the-top plot twists in the end. Some of them are reasonable and reminiscent of the tangles Hudson and Day used to get themselves into, but, in the end, it’s a little too much.

Peyton Reed’s direction is smooth and showcases the movie’s strong performers, but no direction can aid an ending that convoluted.

Oh, and David Hyde Pierce and Sarah Paulson as Catcher’s and Barbara’s editors, respectively, are delightful.

Plus, McGregor and Zellweger belt out a catchy little ditty at the end. I like it.

Troy (2004)

Premise: Wow, the story of the fall of Troy. Who doesn’t know this? I’ll give it a try. Paris (Orlando Bloom), Prince of Troy, has a steamy affair with Helen (newcomer Diane Kruger), Queen of Sparta, who run away to Troy together. His older brother and heir to the throne, Prince Hector (Eric Bana), chooses to protect his brother even though it will mean war for his country. The King of Sparta, Menelaus (Brendan Gleeson), vows revenge and enlists the help of his brother, Agamemnon (Brian Cox), king of Mycenae. Agamemnon gathers together all the rulers and warriors of ancient Greece, including the wily king of Ithaca, Odysseus (Sean Bean), and the vainglorious Achilles (Brad Pitt).

Or, as Professor Bloedow would say, “Sing, Goddess, of the wrath of the son of Peleus [Achilles].”

Welcome to summer blockbuster season! Yes, it starts in May now. It has since Gladiator opened May 5, 2000.

I’ll tell you in advance that I have been avoiding reading other reviews of this movie until I could form my own opinion and get it out to you. Thus, if something seems familiar in this review, I’m sure it’s possible that other critics have the same opinion as me.

You know that I am a sucker for sweeping epics and historical fiction, so, of course, I was desperate to see Troy from the moment I first read about it. My anxiety and desperation were quickly dispelled by the grandeur and passion of this film.

It isn’t, however, Homer’s The Illiad. Yes, it is the basis, the source of the story, but it is not what you will find there. This film is distinctly Wolfgang Peterson’s (director) and David Benioff’s (writer) Troy.

Peterson is a master in the art of the epic storytelling (e.g. Das Boot and The Perfect Storm). There is a sumptuous magnificence to every shot, as though he breathes life itself into the film. He paces his actors out to strengthen their performances with every line. Truly, truly, he loves making movies.

Benioff’s only previous screenplay is Spike Lee’s 25th Hour. If you have seen that, then you know what I am about to say. 2 words: character development. No single character ends up where s/he began, and Benioff takes you through every single, often painstaking, step. It’s just . . . wow. He did strip the story of its mythological layer, which I will admit I missed, but he included one detail that meant the world to me. At one point, Paris’s thigh is sliced in battle. Mythologically, the cut of the thigh of a male leader symbolizes the death of a nation. That was perfect. Absolutely perfect.

Some may argue that Pitt’s Achilles is a bit two dimensional, maybe even a little on the low brow side, but I thought he was spot on. Spot on to the vain, obsessive Achilles that Homer had originally envisioned. And the scene that he shares with the luminous and talented Julie Christie as Achilles’ mother, Thetis, is so telling. And watching the relationship between him and Briseis (Rose Byrne) was hot. They were fantastic together.

When it comes to Bana, can I just say that I want to marry him now? His Hector is so loving and heroic, so compassionate and fierce. Before I thought of Hector only as a warrior and a prince, but now he seems so complex and real to me.

As for Bloom, his star is on the rise. His first battle sends him into a humiliating retreat in front of Helen, and Bloom laps it up. He might, however, want to lay off the summer blockbuster/epic films. At the young age of 27, and only 14 films to his credit, the last thing he needs is to have ‘typecast’ stamped on his forehead.

Costumes, hair, and make-up were also impressive. The women’s dresses did up with two little clips on each shoulder, showing careful research. Those little details mean a lot to me.

James Horner’s score was, well, typical James Horner. A bit over the top at some points, and not at the calibre of Braveheart, but impressive nonetheless.

Oh! And Peter O’Toole as Priam, King of Troy! He was amazing. His love made me cry.

In case it comes up, it’s Men-uh-LAY-us, not Men-uh-LAOWSE. He’s not a country in south-east Asia, people.

I realize that this review is a little on the long side, but I think I’ve mentioned everything I wanted to mention. Go see it! Go see it today – don’t wait for the DVD.

The Anniversary Party (2001)

Plot: A day in the life of Joe Therrian (Alan Cumming) and Sally Nash (Jennifer Jason Leigh) as they celebrate their sixth anniversary after having been separated for a year and reconciled for about six months. He's a critically acclaimed British author; she's a celebrated actress whose career is on the decline. Their guests are an eclectic collection of celebrities.

Definitely, definitely a hidden gem. Written and directed by the two aforementioned stars, it sparkles with depth and beauty. There's such sincerity to it. I never for a moment doubt that the things that happen to and through these people are possible. Plus, it's the only movie that I haven't found Cumming utterly frightening in. Both of them are so sad and happy and emotional and real.

Of course, an amazing supporting cast helps. There's John Benjamin Hickey, Parker Posey, Phobe Cates, Kevin Kline, Jane Adams, John C. Reilly, Gwyneth Paltrow, Matt Malloy, and Jennifer Beals, just to name a few.

It's almost as though that despite the fact that it has two stars, it is also an ensemble cast. Is that even possible? I guess, to a certain extent, the stars wouldn't make the film so perfectly real if it weren't for the supporting cast. That's the mark of a good supporting cast, in the end: their ability to make their stars shine.

And they do. Brilliantly.

America’s Sweethearts (2001)

Short: A publicist, Lee Phillips (Billy Crystal), scrambles to get an on-screen/off-screen couple, Gwen Harrison (Catherine Zeta-Jones) and Eddie Thomas (John Cusack), back together in time for the press junket for their latest film after their very public break-up. His only ally is Gwen’s long-suffering assistant and sister, Kiki (Julia Roberts), as he battles the director (Christopher Walken), Gwen’s Spanish lover (Hank Azaria), his replacement (Seth Green), the producer (Stanley Tucci), and, of course, the press.

April takes requests! Yes, I do take requests, and I am reviewing the film at the behest of a friend. I don’t know how much longer we will be friends, though, after she reads this.

Because the movie is horrible. Just horrible. It’s too long, too boring, too contrived.

Don’t get me wrong here. I think Crystal, Zeta-Jones, Cusack, Walken, Azaria, Green, and Tucci are some of the best people out there. In fact, if I haven’t mentioned it before, I love Tucci. He’s so good. So very good.

Notice how Roberts didn’t make that list. I have a problem with her because she plays the same character in every movie. By now she’s not even acting, she’s doing Roberts. I bet she’s really nice in real life and probably fun to hang out with, but I cannot stand seeing her do the same thing over and over again. How do I know this? The one time she takes on a more challenging role, she wins an Academy Award. Erin Brockovich was a good movie, albeit more of a glorified made-for-TV movie, but that doesn’t mean she should get an Oscar. And don’t come after me with Mary Reilly or The Pelican Brief to defend her because you’ll have to take a closer look to make a convincing point. Actually, I think her best movie is Steel Magnolias. That one you could argue.

From what I have read, Lee and Kiki are the ones who were supposed to end up together, which I think would have been better, and Roberts refused to wear the fat suit for the whole film, so they had to add in all that stuff about Kiki losing 60 pounds. What kind of example is that setting for young women everywhere? That you can only get the guy you want after he loses his mind, and you lose the extra pounds? I much prefer the message of BJD: Be your crazy self, and dreamy Colin Firth will fall in love with you.

Actually, some of the best scenes are between Cusack and Alan Arkin, who plays his “Wellness Guide.” If you’ll recall, I also said that about Grosse Pointe Blank. So nice they did it twice.

So where did it all go wrong? Combination of writing and directing. I think too highly of Crystal to say that his work on the screenplay was bad, which means that Peter Tolan will have to be sacrificed to make up for it. What is wrong with him? He wastes the talents of his cast, and he dwells on the unimportant and uninteresting. On the other hand, what can you really expect from the guy who brought you Stealing Harvard and What Planet Are You From??

And then you’ve got a director with no vision. Yes, thank you, Joe Roth, for not attempting to save the script or your star-studded cast.

Well, there you have it, folks. I don’t want you to shy away from making requests, just keep in mind that you might not want me to tear apart your favourite film.

Parenthood (1989)

Plan: Following the lives of three generations of Buckmans: Gil (Steven Martin) is married to Karen (Mary Steenburgen). Their eldest child, Kevin (Jasen Fisher) has “emotional problems”. Helen (Dianne Weist) is a single mom raising two children, one of whom, Garry (Joaquin Phoenix) never opens his door or his mouth. Susan (Harley Jane Kozak) and her husband, Nathan (Rick Moranis) are trying to raise a genius. Poor Patty (Ivyann Schwan). Finally, Larry (Tom Hulce) returns home after a three year absence with a three year old, Cool (Alex Burrall), in tow.

That doesn’t even begin to explain how complex the network of family life can be or is in this movie. I’d draw you a family tree, but I don’t want to be bothered.

Honestly, I didn’t know Ron Howard (director) had such a deft ability for comedy outside of acting. I usually associate him with the kinds of movies he makes now, like A Beautiful Mind and The Missing. However, surprised by his sense of whimsy, I checked out his filmography. Turns out he also directed Splash and Cocoon. So, in case it comes up, Ron Howard is the coolest.

As for Lowell Ganz and Babaloo Mandel, they’ve written everything together since they first worked on Happy Days, which is probably why Howard directs many of their movies. In all honesty, they are pretty darn funny and can be quite poignant at times as well.

So, um, yeah, the cast. How about instead I just give you some general conclusions that were drawn from the viewing? Okay? Okay.
1. Martin is ageless. I think his hair might be a little more silver, but he hasn’t really aged in about 15 years.
2. Weist plays the best single moms ever. She always goes all out to make her kids happy.
3. Phoenix used to be credited as Leaf, not Joaquin. Who knew?
4. Moranis needs to make more movies now-a-days. He’s great.
5. Burrall is a great little kid. So is the kid who plays Justin.

There ya have it. Actually, the best lines in the movie were spoken by people I haven’t even mentioned yet. Jason Robards plays the patriarch of this sprawling family, Keanu Reeves, as a disapproved-of boyfriend, dispenses advice to Weist, and Grandma (Helen Shaw) is the wisest of all.

Untamed Heart (1993)

Brief: I'm trying to figure out how much the trailer/back of the box will tell you. Okay, after he saves her from an attempted rape, Caroline (Maris Tomei) realizes that Adam (Christian Slater) is in love with her. As she learns more about him, she decides to fall in love with him, too. She also learns that he is convinced that he has the heart of a baboon king in his chest.

Yeah, good enough. Oh, man, this movie takes me back. You know when people ask you what your favourite childhood movie was? And you answer something like Robin Hood - the one with the foxes - or The Wizard of Oz? Well, I blabbed out Untamed Heart once, and it just sort of stuck. Honestly, it is a movie I watched and loved as a child. Like Ferris Buller's Day Off. And Mannequin 2: On the Move. Not Mannequin. Mannequin 2. I was a strange kid.

You know why I still love it, though? Tomei and Slater are awesome! Their are so believable as star-crossed lovers, and their sweetly innocent chemistry makes it all the more poignant. While Slater seems to have fallen off the wagon, Tomei has proven herself again and again as an actress of substance.

Get this! It's directed by Tony Bill! Remember when I told y'all about Five Corners, the movie that only Carol and I had ever heard of? Well, he directed this movie as well. It's sweet, and simple, and well done. Bill's direction shows that he knows when to give and when to take.

As for Tom Sierchio (writer), well, he's not done anything else. There is, however, an "untitled Tom Sierchio project" due out this year, so I'm glad he's turning that around. His script's not the best, but with good editing, direction, and acting, he seems like winner.

I'm so giddy just writing about this movie! You know that's a good sign. So take the time to see it.

Too Wong Foo, Thanks For Everything! Julie Newmar (1995)

Idea: Miss Noxeema Jackson (Wesley Snipes) and Miss Vida Boheme (Patrick Swayze) tie for the title in a New York drag queen contest, winning them a trip to Hollywood to compete nationally. They find themselves persuaded to help turn Miss Chi-Chi Rodriguez (John Leguizamo) into a true drag Queen, so they trade in their fare for a classic Cadillac. On their way, their car breaks down, and they find themselves stranded in a one-horse-town in the middle of nowhere. Hilarity ensues.

Truly, truly, I used to love this movie. I couldn't get enough of it. Now, it's been years since I last saw it, but I can still hear that hilarious dialogue in my head. It just kills me. Kills me dead.

And, um, yes, it is largely about drag queens. The hilarity doesn't stem from the idea of men dressed up as women, but the confusion they can cause. There are also some social issues thrown in there for good measure.

I attribute its lasting impression on me mostly to the actors. Leguizamo is an incredible talented man, and he is possibly one of the best supporting actors out there. I do believe it is harder work to support well, and Leguizamo is perfectly cut for it. To be honest, I don't think I've ever seen Swayze do another comedy, and, well, he's good, but not good enough to be a comedic actor. As for Snipes, I much prefer him in this role as opposed to the action heroes he is so prone to playing.

Beeban Kidron, well, I don't know even know if that's a male or female name. S/he doesn't seem to have done much else, but s/he did direct the highly anticipated - at least by me - BJD sequel, The Edge of Reason. If s/he screws that up, I will turn my back on him/her with a second thought.

Moving on to Douglas Carter Beane, the writer. The movie is his writing debut, and he's only ever written one other movie. Something must have scared him of, which is a shame, given his natural knack for comedy. Hopefully he'll come out of the woodwork yet and give me something to go on.

Serious, see the movie. You'll laugh. I can't imagine anyone not laughing.

Dangerous Beauty (1998)

Outline: When a lower class woman, Veronica Franco (Catherine McCormack) realizes that her upper class love, Marco Venier (Rufus Sewell), can/will never marry her, her mother (Jacqueline Bisset) trains her to become a courtesan. To Marco's chagrin, Veronica becomes the most popular courtesan in 16th century Venice. Oh, it's based on a true story, by the way.

Yes, gentle reader, I have fallen astray from my original mandate of daily reviews. Between moving, new job, and summer session at school, I have been a wee bit busy. Hang in there with me, I'll find a balance yet. On the bright side, I am returning to my implicit mandate of bringing you movies you have never even heard of. Once again it's a film I came across late one night on satellite. Oh, satellite TV, how I miss you.

Also, yes, it's about a courtesan, so there is lots of sex in the movie. It's also quite scary at other points. I don't know what to tell you. It's 16th century Venice - what exactly are you expecting?

McCormack is stunningly believable as the disillusioned, brilliant, and sexy Veronica. Perhaps it is because she is singularly beautiful, but I am certain there must more that it than that. She literally glows, so passionate and sorrowful is her portrayal.

Before I saw this film, I thought Sewell was best suited to villains. And not complex ones at that. This film, however, did . . . well, I was going to say "a lot to shake that theory", but that's not really true. It did a little to shake that theory thought not enough to sell me on him. I am excited, however, to see him as Lord Marke when Tristan & Isolde comes out later this year. Oh, Aruthurian legend.

Marshall Herskovitz's direction is striking and sumptuous. I'm not really sure how it fares in comparison with his other work, as all I have seen besides this is the critically-acclaimed Once and Again. Of course, I loved that show, and I love this movie, so it's a pretty safe bet to say that he's got it goin' on.

As for Jeannine Dominy's adaptation of Margaret Rosenthal's book, I have no opinion. I've never read the book, and Dominy has done nothing else. I'm a sucker for historical fiction and period pieces, so this film is right up my ally.

Speaking of historical fiction, that pretty much guarantees that you can find this film at your local library, where they will let you take it away for free. Unless you are me, of course, and then they will want you to pay your overdue fine. And your co-workers will admonish you for not paying it. That's special.

Saving Grace (2000)

Short: After her husband passes away, Grace (Brenda Blethyn) discovers that she is deeply in debt and will lose her house. Her gardener, Matthew (Craig Ferguson), and she start a grow operation in order to make some quick coin in their small Irish town.

Before anyone accuses me of having a year 2000 bias, I tell you truly that I had no idea this movie was from the year 2000. How was I supposed to know? I just knew about the ghonja (?).

In any case, the real concern here would be why are the British so hilarious? Has anyone figured out why they are so much funnier than you or I? Well, actually, Canadians are some of the funniest people on planet. Probably because we are always kidding on the square. All things considered, though, most people think the British are hilarious, and it isn't only an obsession with drinking tea and strong beer. I don't know how to explain it - it just is that way.

Another inexplicable thing is the uncanny talent of Blethyn and the endearing chemistry between her and Ferguson, who is also the script's co-author. Blethyn is truly one of the most talented actresses out there, with a near-frightening ability to do the height of comedy and the depth of tragedy with equal grace and skill.

The movie's directed by Nigel Cole, and it makes me all the more excited to see his latest, Calendar Girls. Actually, Saving Grace is his silver screen directorial debut, and, well, he's got one heck of a knack for comedy. I think it's true what they say about comedy: it is harder than drama. I suppose that's the point. I mean, how many people have you come across who can make you laugh until you cry?

I'd go on, but I'm afraid I could never do justice to the quirks and particularities of small town life, especially, it seems, in a small Irish town. I guess you'll just have to trust me on this one until you see it.

Being John Malkovich (1999)

Premise: A talented puppeteer, Craig Schwartz (John Cusack), takes a job as a file clerk at the behest of his pet-obsessed wife, Lotte (Cameron Diaz). After he drops a file behind a cabinet, he discovers a portal that leads inside John Malkovich's (himself) head. He and his wife fall for his business partner, Maxine (Caroline Keener), who is only interested in either of them when they are inside Malkovich. Eventually, Craig learns how to control Malkovich, and Maxine convinces him to stay in there, permanently.

Man, I thought that was a long plot description, but it doesn't even begin to cover what goes on in the movie. The best part is, I feel, that no one doubts or questions the fact that Craig finds this portal. No one even accuses him of being out of his mind. That kills me.

Here's another thing. I just realized the last time I watched this movie that Malkovich is the most talented person of the lot. I know it seems really obvious because of how crazy talented he is, but he has to act like Malkovich being controlled by someone else while fighting to be Malkovich. In other words, he has to take the stunning performance Cusack gives and replicate it while destroying it. It's wild.

Which, of course, would be the best word to describe Charlie Kaufman's screenplay. Everything that is said or occurs in his movies is so off the wall that it's hard to judge. Everything is fantasy, but nothing seems that out of the ordinary or unlikely. I don't understand how he does it. All I know is how amazing it all is to take in.

Spike Jonze, the director, must know what I mean because they have a new project due out next year. Other than that, he was a music video director before this. He definitely knows how to grab and sustain your attention.

Also, Sean Penn has a cameo that kills me. Honestly, so funny.

For some reason, I found this movie in the comedy section. That's the thing about Kaufman, I guess. There are definitely funny parts, but it's not a comedy. It's fantasy and drama and action as well. I suppose it was simply difficult to categorize.

The Hudsucker Proxy (1994)

Brief: After Waring Hudsucker (Charles Durning) takes a flying leap from the 44th floor of Hudsucker Industries, Sidney J. Mussburger (Paul Newman) plots to drive down the cost of the soon-to-be public shares, so the board can gobble them up and continue to be millionaires. They install an educated yet naive mail room clerk, Norville Barnes (Tim Robbins), as their proxy president. Things turn sour when Barnes invents the hoola-hoop, putting the company back on top. Meanwhile, Amy Archer (Jennifer Jason Leigh) is a journalist who goes undercover as Barnes' assistant to get the real story.

More Coens. And I do love my Coens. The film's stylish and hilarious, but . . . well, I'll get back to that.

Newman is fantastic as a devilish CEO. Robbins, as you well know, is crazy talented, and this performance is inspired. My only real concern is the annoying accent/way of talking Leigh adopts. What is that about? What is it supposed to signify? I didn't get it.

Okay, seriously, I can't seem to think of much to say about this movie. The box said "two thumbs up!", all triumphant, but I don't agree with that. The movie is like a wool sweater. It's warm and comfortable and soft, but it also a little bit itchy. If you don't condition yourself to ignore the itchiness, it will drive you crazy. Yup, that's actually how I feel about the movie.

And that's the thing with the Coens. It's almost as though you have to know how to watch them. If you don't realize how tongue in cheek everything is, you are liable to find it inconsistent and even trite. They aren't, at all, but it could seem that way.

Moving Day (2004)

Plan: April moves from one ghetto to another.

So, umm, yeah, I'm moving today, which means that I don't know if I will have enough time or energy to blog. As such, I made up a top 5 list for today. You can post your picks in the comment section.

Top 5 Songs I downloaded because I heard them in a movie

1. Peter Gabriel - "In Your Eyes" from say anything . . .
2. Gary Jules - "Mad World" (alternate version) from Donnie Darko
3. Psychedelic Furs - "Pretty in Pink" from Pretty in Pink (actually, the movie's based on the song, but that's another story)
4. Paul Westerberg - "Dyslexic Heart" from Singles
5. Suzanne Vega - "Tom's Diner" from Untamed Heart

Summer of Sam (1999)

Short: Vinny (John Leguizamo) becomes convinced that the Son of Sam killer has seen him and will come after him, all the while trying to deal with his issues of sexuality concerning his wife, Dionna (Mira Sorvino). His life is juxtaposed with that of his friend Richie (Adrien Brody) and his relationship with his girlfriend, Ruby (Jennifer Esposito).

Okay, I admit that I was initially misled by this movie. I was convinced that I had read somewhere that Leguizamo was the Son of Sam in the movie, and I was very afraid to watch it. As it turns out, he is not the killer, but the movie is scary nonetheless. Sexuality and violence play large roles in the film. Even so, it was gratuitous for my tastes. Just a forewarning.

While I very much enjoy a Spike Lee joint, I felt cheated by this movie in some way. Not because of my misconceptions about the plot/characters, but I know that I have seen better Spike Lee joints that this one. I'm not saying that I expect every movie to be Malcolm X, but I know he can do better. Does that make sense?

He brings out brilliant performances in his stars, working the under-appreciated Leguizamo and the talented Brody to near perfection. Sorvino and Esposito are also quite talented, and the movie can seem a bit overwhelming while watching their performances.

Somewhere in all Lee's movies, I find, is this undercurrent of what negative emotion does to people. Do you know what I mean? The effect guilt, hate, jealousy has on the psyche, so to speak. He does a lot with hate and fear in this film, and it can be a lot to take in.

Oh, I just found out that creepy John Turturro is the voice of the dog. That makes sense.

Boiled down, the film is about identity crises. The thing is, though, Lee takes that idea a bit too far. The film comes across as an identity crisis. The performances are impressive, script and direction well done, but there's a certain lack of coherence to it all. And you feel it when it's done. You feel like you want . . . something more.

True Colors (1991)

Premise: Peter Burton (John Cusack) and Tim Gerrity (James Spader) are the best of friends. When the overly ambitious, politically minded Peter betrays Tim, he has revenge on his mind.

There's actually lots of other stuff that goes on in the movie, but that's about as basic as it gets.

Okay, I know I've been trying to lay off John (in addition to Kiefer) movies, and I have been. But there was this really long line at Roger's the other night, so Em and I decided to wander around. I spied Cusack and Spader on a case, so I read the plot description. And, well, you can figure out the rest.

Of course, it helps that this movie is awesome! Honestly, I didn't really know what to expect from it. Fortuitously, it was great. I love it when things turn out like that.

Herbert Ross always seems to tell these sorts of stories. That's how I view the director, in any case, as a story-teller of sorts. He did Steel Magnolias, Boys on the Side, and Footloose, so he's got my vote. Okay, it seems like he does a lot of chick flicks, and it's kind of true. Really good ones though! He wrings incredible performances from his actors, and I will not condemn him for it.

Kevin Wade, on the other hand, has written some crap movies. I guess he used all his talent for this one. Forget about him. I'm cutting to the important part.

Remember when I said that Cusack surprised me as a villain in Cradle Will Rock? Forget that. Rockefeller couldn't hold a candle to Burton. Cusack crafts possibly his most stunning performance as Peter, a guy with a chip on his shoulder the size of Manhattan and a Macbeth-sized ambition to go along with it. That scene, towards the end when Peter realizes how much he has to lose, so desperate to hang on to what's left . . . wow. I mean it. Just plain wow. And then you've got Spader to balance him out. Sure, Tim can seem a bit naive at times, but he's as bloodthirsty as the rest of them given the right motivation. It's even better when he discovers how bitter blood can taste.

More importantly, the chemistry between the two of them is white hot. It's tangible and electric. I don't think I could come up with enough superlatives to describe it. Serious, the thought of rental fees disappears from my mind while watching the two of them on the screen.

Oh yeah, the girl. Imogen Stubbs isn't particularly compelling, and she can't seem to shake her British accent. She does a fine enough job as an upper-crust girl with a lot to learn, and I can say that she doesn't hold Spader or Cusack back. I can say that.

One more thing. What's with Trevor Jones' music? He's the same guy I loved so much from Dark City, but I have no idea what he's doing here. It's like he suddenly forgot that music is supposed to convey emotion, matching and creating pathos for the characters. If you can ignore that . . .

This film could possibly become one of my all-time favourite hidden gems. Right now, it's holding its own, but time can only tell. Serious, check it out. Check it out today. I don't think I can emphasize that enough.

sex, lies, and videotape (1989)

Summary: Ann (Andie MacDowell) has no interest in sex with her husband, John (Peter Gallagher), so he turns to her sister, Cynthia (Laura San Giacomo). Things change when John's college friend, Graham (James Spader) blows into town, bringing a strange new fetish with him.

Oh, Steven Soderbergh. This film is possibly one of the best writing/directorial debuts of all time. The bare sets, the naked soundtrack, the stunning performances are all intense and intimate. Graham's fetish involves interviews, and the film feels like you are watching one. All these long shots, pacing out the story, then a sudden powerful and sexual close-up. It's hot, to say the least.

Spader (who came along before Soderbergh found his golden boy in George Clooney) and MacDowell are phenomenal. Their chemistry is tangible, their body language potent, and their interaction intense. San Giacomo is believable as the jealous younger sister and Gallagher as a stupidly over-confident lout. But they can't hold a candle to watching the relationship between Graham and Ann progress. It's wild.

I realize that I made the film sound highly sexual, which it is, but that doesn't mean you watch a lot of sex. You don't. I've got to tell you, I don't like movies with a lot of sex. I much prefer to see the before and after because it's rarely important to show the audience anything more. But, yes, the word sex is in the title, and it plays a huge role in the film. So do lies. And, especially, so does videotape.

Scent of a Woman (1992)

Outline: A blue-collar student (Chris O'Donnell) at a New England prep school takes a Thanksgiving weekend job house-sitting a homebound vet (Al Pacino). As soon as his family's out the door, the vet takes the student on weekend trip to New York that he'll not soon forget.

I'm really confused by Martin Brest as a director. This film is glorious, but he went on to make some utter crap (i.e. Meet Joe Black and Gigli). He makes movies so sporadically that I feel he forgets how to do it in between. Trivia: this film is a remake of the Italian film Parfumo di donna.

Bo Goldman, quite obviously, then based his sceenplay on Giovanni Arpino's novel, and the character suggestions are credited to the Italian screenwriters. That's pretty much what he did with One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, and it is a formula that serves him well.

I don't even know what to tell you about Pacino in all his Academy Award winning glory. He started out as a such a restrained actor (see The Godfather if you don't believe me), then, about the time of Scarface, something just exploded in him. For whatever reason, that fire has yet to so much as dim. He blazes across the screen this time and, I feel I must mention, looks great in a tailored suit.

O'Donnell, much like my opinion of John Cusack in City Hall, has it pretty easy. He basically has to act like he's in awe/slightly afraid of Pacino, and I mean, c'mon, how hard could that be? This film was his fourth, and, if I was him, I would have fainted when I found out I got the part. Fainted.

Also, Phillip Seymour Hoffman, the chameleon, and Bradley Whitford are around for some stunning scenes.

Although I felt it was the teeniest bit too long, the film was well worth it to absorb every minute of Pacino's deeply nuanced performance. Oh, and Colin was right: that tango is killer.

Love Story (1970)

Plot: Everyone knows the plot to Love Story! It's Love Story! I mean, it's like having no idea about Gone With the Wind. Oh, alright: Oliver Barrett IV (Ryan O'Neal), a Harvard pre-law student and hockey jock, falls for Jenny Cavalleri (Ali McGraw), an uptight Radcliffe bitch. The fall in love, get married, then Jenny dies. I know you're like, April! You just spoiled the whole movie for me!, but I didn't. That's pretty much what O'Neal narrators in the first two minutes of the film, so you can take it up with him.

So, yeah, Love Story was on TV last night, and I thought, "I should check it out." See, if I had known then what I know now, I would have replied to myself, "Nah." Love Story is the original and quintessential cross-tracks-love-at-all-costs-change-the-world-then-she-dies-of-some-wasting-disease-that-keeps-her-looking-fresh-on-her-death-bed movie. I thought it was also the kind where the free spirited young woman teaches the uptight rich preppie to let loose. It's not, though. It's the reverse.

In fact, O'Neal is amazing in this role. To use a charming expression of the youth of my day, he just gives 'er. Honestly, his Ollie is so fraught with emotional energy, so elated and depressed; I just love it. What sucks is that McGraw, who can't hold a candle to his performance, won more awards than he did for this movie. And why, may I ask you? Because she died? O'Neal's the clear star here, and he deserves better.

Here's some hilarious trivia: Erich Segal, the screenwriter, is rumoured to have based his lead characters on Al and Tipper Gore, whom he attend college with. Tommy Lee Jones was Al Gore's roommate in college. Tommy Lee Jones plays O'Neal's college roommate in the movie. I'm sorry, but that just killed me. It was too funny.

Oh, and how could I neglect the award-winning theme from Love Story? It's a beautiful piano piece, making me both reminisce about when I played piano and wish I still did. I had a music teacher who told our class that an important part of playing well was to listen other great (insert your instrument here) players. He was so right. The theme from Love Story was one piece I used to listen to all the time.

Apparently there's a sequel, Oliver's Story, which I think I will watch because I enjoyed O'Neal/Oliver so much. Weird, isn't it? A movie that makes you want to see it's sequel but not because you enjoyed the first movie? Weird indeed.

Keeping the Faith (2000)

Plan: An inebriated man leans in close to a bartender. "It's about a rabbi and a priest," he explains. "I think I've heard this one before," the bartender replies, preparing to leave. "I don't think so," the man slurs. He tells him a story of three best friends: one moves away, one becomes a priest, and the third becomes a rabbi. Years later, Anna (Jenna Elfman) returns, and both Rabbi Jake Schram (Ben Stiller) and Father Brian Finn (Edward Norton) fall for her.

The year 2000 kills me. As if all these movies I love are from the same year. As if.

Yay! April comments on yet another directorial debut. Go Edward Norton. Not only is he sexy and talented with an excellent sense of comedic timing and an ability to do slapstick, he can direct. From the opening shots of the city to the jazzy soundtrack (which I own, thank you, Jennie!), it's clear that his immediate influence is Woody Allen. After all, Allen gave him one of his first roles in Everyone Says I Love You, and they both spin each film within their obsessive love of the concrete animal that is NYC. Serious, though, Norton tells his story with a sense of the epic in each shot. They are can be intimate, sweet, funny, and simple. He lets the actors, the script, the setting, everything speak for itself. And it turns out wonderfully.

Stiller, well, I wish he made more movies like this one. He's obviously hilarious to the core, and I've never seen him in anything I didn't enjoy him in. Even so, he's a delight to watch, and the friendship between him and Norton is palpable.

So is the chemistry between the three of them. Elfman may be best known as the wacky Dharma from Dharma and Greg, but she handles a more serious role well, displaying patience and panache when necessary.

I have to mention Anne Bancroft as well, who plays Stiller's mother. Not only is she positively radiant (I can only hope to look the way she does at her age), she plays off the three of them brilliantly, relishing every moment.

Stuart Blumberg, the screenwriter, attended Yale with Norton, and they were once roommates. That probably explains why Norton gave him his first break (that's right, a double debut), but I am wary of Blumberg. He also penned The Girl Next Door, so I am keeping an eye on him. Honestly, his characterization is good and his diction believable, so we'll see.

In a nut shell, a sweet and simple comedy to watch. Honestly, I think it's hard not to enjoy it. Really hard.

waydowntown (2000)

Summary: Four co-workers make a bet to see which one can stay inside the longest. It's lunch hour on Day 24: Tom (Fab Filippo) smokes dope to take the edge off while realizing that his cubicle mate, Brad (Don McKellar), is going to commit suicide, Curt (Gordon Currie) can go the distance if he can only get laid, Sandra (Marya Delver) is assigned to monitor their klepto boss, and Randy (Tobias Godson) only got into it for the pure juvenile excitement of it all.

Oh, year 2000.

Okay, I own State and Main, and one of the previews for it is waydowntown. The preview has no words, and it looked like Microserfs on crack. Needless to say, I thought it looked scary as can be. Then someone told me it was funny. So I picked it up at Roger's yesterday. Was it in the comedy section, "we're funny"? No. It was in the "we're Canadian" section. Apparently that's a genre. Right next to the "we're gay and lesbian" genre. These people really need to hire me to straighten out (no pun intended) their genre madness.

That said, I would not label this movie as a comedy. It's really more of a fantasy than a comedy. There was only the second act that I found actually humourous, but that doesn't mean I didn't like the movie. It was really good. Trippy, interesting, and smart. Yay for Gary Burns, the director and co-author.

Filippo is actually one of my fav Canadian actors, although I didn't know his real name 'til about 12 hours ago. Before that, he was always Dom from Ready or Not to me. He is so sexy, and I love the way Tom keeps referring to everyone as "Guy".

This movie was a colossal waste, though, of McKellar. He is truly one of the funniest people ever and being Canadian just makes him that much more amusing. To get a sense of what I mean, check out Twitch City, his show, on tonight at 9 on Showcase. It's about an unrepentant couch-potato who never leaves his apartment.

In conclusion, previews aren't all they are cracked up to be. So it goes, my friends, so it goes.

Swingers (1996)

Short: One depressed comedian, Mike (Jon Favreau), takes advice from his incredibly stupid friend, Trent (Vince Vaughn), on how to get over his break-up long time girlfriend and move on with his life. Mike's other friend, Rob (Ron Livingston), abandoned Hamlet off-Broadway (or maybe even on) to come live the life Mike had made seem so desirable. Because, I have yet to mention, they are struggling actors/comedians in L.A..

This movie is such a hidden gem. When it first came out, I tried to watch it because I was under the impression that it was going to be very funny. Unfortunately for the movie, I was about 14, and it went right over my head. Plus, what I caught was a chunk in the middle, so I had no idea. Just no idea.

Luckily, I watched it with a bunch of boys again last year, who liked it for entirely different reasons. I tell you truly, I laughed the loudest. If ever there was a better movie to describe the discrepancies between what men think women want and what women actually want, this is it. I had an English teacher who always said that fiction, especially drama in fiction, hinged on the discrepancy between reality and people's perceptions of reality. While I don't think Favreau (writer) ever knew Mrs. Seaton-McLean, he seems to be taking her ideas quite seriously.

I was watching his show, Dinner for Five, the other day, and he and Livingston were talking about this very film. N.B.: Jon Favreau and four other celebrities eat dinner at a restaurant and talk. That's the whole show. As it turns out, Favreau had written it because he was unemployed, and he had nothing better to do. Then, he got his unemployed friends together, and they made the movie. They weren't all friends before this, but I understand that they are now, to a certain extent. So, as you may have surmised, the film's fairly autobiographical.

Doug Liman, the director, brings it all to fruition, and he does it with panache. I just love the way everything turns out in this movie, and Heather Graham doesn't ruin it with her suckiness, so that's an added bonus.

Alright, well, I'm done. Oh, wait, a couple more things:
1) I have been accused of having a bias when it comes to my reviews. Of course I have a bias - it's my opinion that I am putting forth. In addition, I have a bias apropos the movies I watch v. the movies I haven't seen/the movies I wish I hadn't seen (e.g. Texas Rangers, what was I thinking?). So?
2) No one comments on these things! I know that I see way more movies than most people, and Em usually comments because she watches them with me. Still, this is depressing. And disheartening. And a lot of other sad words that start with d.

The Thin Red Line (1998)

Brief: Introspective look at the conflict at Guadalcanal (in the South Pacific) during World War II. Although an ensemble piece, focuses mainly on a wayward Private (Jim Caviezel), his Sergeant (Sean Penn), and the Lieutenant Colonel (Nick Nolte) leading them into battle.

This movie came out after Saving Private Ryan, and, although I recall some kind words, what most people said was that it was no Saving Private Ryan. Well, that's true. But who said it was trying to be Saving Private Ryan?

Writer and director Terrance Malick adapted James Jones' autobiographical novel. It's apparently a limited omniscient autobiographical tale. The film works by bringing you into a close-up of a certain character, then you get to hear his thoughts. In addition, there is no character named Jones that I could find. So, I figured it's considered autobiographical because he was there, but Malick took the film in another direction. I've never seen anything else Malick has written or directed, so I have no idea whether this is a habit of his.

Now, when I said ensemble, I was dead serious. This is almost as ensemble as they come. And you know that nothing makes me more excited than a well done ensemble. Penn is billed above title, and the rest are listed alphabetically, which is odd, as I believe Nolte has the biggest part, then Caviezel. In any case, I will tell you some of the faces I recognized; Adrien Brody, Ben Chaplin, George Clooney, John Cusack, Woody Harleson, Elias Koteas, Jared Leto, Dash Mihok, Tim Blake Nelson, John C. Reilly, and John Travolta. I felt that the uber-talent (and beautiful) Brody was wasted given that he had only a handful of lines. Chaplin does a fair bit of narration, all about his wife, and he was pretty darn good. I already liked Chaplin, but I didn't know how nice his voice was to listen to prior to this.

I confess, I do not know what the thin red line is/means. Honestly, I don't think they came right out and said that in the film, and I didn't pick up on the symbolism. In fact, at the end of the film, I was thinking, "The thin red line between what and what? between what and what?!" See, I was pissed because the movie is so long (170 mins), yet I had no clue what the title referred to.

Oh, yeah, Hans Zimmer scored the movie. Hans Zimmer scores everything. And he does it really well. Enough about that.

So, to sum, great cast, long, no Saving Private Ryan. If you want Saving Private Ryan, though, go out and rent Saving Private Ryan. That should solve all your problems right quick.

say anything . . . (1989)

Plot: After graduation, Lloyd Dobler (John Cusack) asks out the valedictorian, a "brain trapped in the body of a game show hostess", Diane Court (Ione Skye). To his surprise, she says yes. To her surprise, she falls for him. Perhaps the best way to describe this film would be to say, at the party Lloyd takes her to on their first date, a lower classman (Jason Gould) asks Lloyd how he got Diane Court to go out with him. Lloyd replies, "I called her up." Shocked, the kid asks why that particular tactic worked, and, more importantly, who exactly is this man that it would work for him? The sum of the movie is contained in the reply "I'm Lloyd Dobler."

I admit that I have been wary about commenting on this film for the following three reasons: 1) I've already written about it, 2) I'm crazy about it, and 3) It's genius. I've made my feelings about directorial debuts (excitement!) and Cameron Crowe (to reiterate, genius!) pretty clear in the past. Crowe writes and directs with such passion, intellect, humour, and talent. He reminds us with every new feature why we love movies. He stirs, creates, and stabs, all with balance and power. I'm struggling here, if you cannot tell, to find words to describe his work.

I am also wary of commenting on Cusack. I've reviewed a fair number of his movies (wonder why?), and I wonder what I can tell you about him. He won the Chicago Film Critics Association's award for Most Promising Actor for his work in this film. I suspect that title is a double-edged sword. How does one live up to one's promise? Are you then full of unexplored potential?

As for Skye, this is one of her first movies. She was a model before this, and it shows. Actually, I like her a fair bit. Diane's got some issues, and Skye displays some prowess in creating them and destroying them.

Okay, there is bunch of other things I could say about this movie, so many little details that make the film exceptional. But I would be giving it away. I would be giving it all away. Okay, I'll give you one little thing. You know that much imitated/much parodied scene with a guy holding up stereo/ghetto blaster - whatever you want to call it - in the hopes of attracting the attention from some lady friend figure? Well, it started here, and there's actually a funny little story behind the song choice. I'll tell about it you sometime. Sometime after you watch it.

City Hall (1996)

Outline: After a shoot out between a cop and a drug dealer with ties to the mob claims the life of a six year-old, the Deputy Mayor (John Cusack) of New York begins his own investigation to protect the Mayor (Al Pacino).

When I say "protect the Mayor", I don't mean that the Deputy Mayor believes the Mayor to be corrupt. He just wants to keep ahead of the game.

Frankly, I know this might sound odd as it is the lead, but I believe that Cusack has the easiest role in the film. See, his character admires Pacino's character, and, I mean, how hard is it to admire Al Pacino? Cusack's Louisiana accent comes and goes, and his lack of shock over the corruption he uncovers is a little disheartening. On the other hand, Cusack's more of a quiet actor, and I find he lends a certain gentleness to his characters because of it. Sometimes, in roles like this one, gentleness is a necessary element often ignored.

Pacino, as always, is a powerhouse, and his Mayor is brilliantly emotional and charismatic. It pissed me off when he started grandstanding at the little boy's funeral, but his outburst makes more sense later in the movie. I'm not entirely sure why Bridget Fonda, who is quite good, was billed over Danny Aiello, who had a larger role and made more of an impact, but so it goes. You also have Martin Landau to distract you. I really like Landau.

Harold Becker, the director, hasn't made anything particularly good or bad. He's a pretty even keel kind of a guy, so I am neither disappointed nor impressed with him. Ken Lipper, Paul Schrader, Nicholas Pileggi, and Bo Goldman co-authored the script, and I must admit that the idea of four writers makes me a bit nervous. I've seen it well done before (e.g. High Fidelity), but I am still wary. It's the only script Lipper as ever written, and the others have some pretty impressive stuff (e.g. Schrader - Taxi Driver, Pileggi - Casino, Goldman - One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest) behind them. In this case, I'm not going to question it.

Given the cast and writers, this film had the potential to be amazing. I would certainly categorize it as entertaining, yet . . . flat. That would be the best way to describe it: entertaining, yet flat.

Cradle Will Rock (1999)

Premise: A struggling artist (Hank Azaria) battles a crazed director (Angus MacFadyen), a pretentious producer (Cary Elwes), and a world-weary cast (including John Turturro and Emily Watson). Nelson Rockefeller (John Cusack) hires Diego Rivera (Ruben Blades) to paint a mural in his new Rockefeller Centre. An employee (Joan Cusack) of the Federal Theatre Program becomes involved with a congressional hearing against her employer and involved with a ventriloquist (Bill Murray).

Okay, that plot description took me about 15 minutes, and I haven't even begun to scratch the surface. Basically, Azaria writes some social commentary into a musical, and there is a boat load of fallout. Also, there is a witch-hunt for the "reds" in the Federal Theatre Program (F.T.P.), a precursor to the Macarthyism that would follow. In case you didn't know, the federal government in the U.S.A. during the Great Depression came up with programs to hire the millions ofunemployed citizens. Most jobs were hard labour based, like making roads and building dams, but there were also more high art based programs such as the F.T.P.. In case it wasn't already clear, this is "a (mostly) true story".

The one word to sum up this film is "ambitious". Honestly, writer/director Tim Robbins, I feel, moved away from his critically acclaimed Dead Man Walking genre, to tell a story that has more personal resonance for him. See, besides Michael Moore, Robbins and his wife, Susan Sarandon, have always made their leftist views evident. While this movie was made six years ago (yes, I can do math, but a movie isn't generally released until a solid year, maybe longer, after it was filmed), I have a friend who feels that people can anticipate a war 6 years in advance. Okay, maybe the film isn't social commentary about the war, or the propaganda that goes with it (e.g. Joan Cusack admonishing her co-workers for being "anti-fascists"), or the censorship that inevitably follows (The Cradle Will Rock is shut down on opening night). Maybe Robbins just wanted to tell a previously untold story.

Wait a second, I'm completely ignoring Bob Roberts. Nevermind, Robbins is up to his same old tricks, and he does it beautifully. He tells the story like he's opening the petals of a rose, each frame moving you closer to that intoxicating scent. And then you are hooked. You are lost, confused, amused, sad, and, above all, thinking. As the character Orson Wells proclaims, "art is meant to provoke!". Did I mention that I love Orson Wells in this movie? MacFadyen chews up the scenery as that ambitious, conceited genius, and his scenes with Elwes are priceless.

I'm not sure I can do justice to the star-studded cast, but I will try. I had no idea Azaria could do drama so well, Turturro knocked my socks off, Watson should really not sing, John Cusack surprised me as a villain (and doing the Charleston, no less!), Blades pours out passion, Joan Cusack delivers another charming (although depressing) performance, and Murray knows how to play all the right notes. Oops! I forgot to mention Susan Sarandon, Vanessa Redgrave (who is actually my favourite in this movie), Philip Baker Hall, Cherry Jones, Jamey Sheridan, Jack Black, and so many others. I think it's entirely possible that Robbins called everyone he knew (at least in New York) and invited them to make a movie with him.

So, um, yeah. Really ambitious film; Robbins pretty much pulled it off. It was difficult to follow at times, and I completely didn't understand how Murray and his dummy fit into all of it. Oh, well, it's still really good, and I think you will like it if you have time to watch it.

Good bye, Lenin! (2003)

Outline: When highly socialist Christiane (Kathrin Sass) sees her son, Alex (Daniel Bruhl), violently arrested in a protest, she has a heart attack and falls into a coma, during which time the Berlin Wall falls and East Germany becomes increasingly influenced by the West. When she comes to eight months later, the doctor informs Alex and Ariane (Maria Simon) that any shock could put their mother in the grave. Alex decides to create a socialist paradise for his mother in order to save her.

Whoo-hoo! Another foreign film. Also, whoo-hoo for the Bytowne! Honestly, I think I could be pretty happy running a repetoire theatre. I would have two screens: one would should classics like A Streetcar Named Desire and The Apartment, and the other would be for the kinds of documentary, independent, and foreign films that the Bytowne shows. Wouldn't that be great?

In any case, I don't understand German, although it is remarkably similar to English, so I can make out some things. Okay, what I mean is, German is not my number one language (English) or my number two language (French) or my number three language (jibber-jabber). Thus, when I watch a film in German, I don't always know if people are doing a good job or a bad job. I usually guess by their faces.

That said, this movie is so sweet and so hilarious. Yes, it borders on the ridiculous at points, and it can be a bit slow, but it's still a good watch. Besides, how sweet is Alex? Who does that for their mom? If you think it wouldn't be that hard, you have no idea. All the food she used to eat it no longer sold, and forget TV and radio. Serious, this kid is hard core.

Don't ask me about Wolfgang Becker (director and co-author). I had never heard of him prior to this. He used to be a cinematographer, and it shows in his direction. As for Bernd Lichtenberg (co-author), to my knowledge, this is literally the only thing he has ever worked on. That must be quite daunting considering how many awards the film as won.

Okay, so, if you can, you should check this film out. It's a little on the slow side, but the laughs are well worth it.

1969 (1988)

Premise: Two friends, Scott (Kiefer Sutherland) and Ralph (Robert Downey Jr.), attend college to avoid the draft. After Ralph flunks out, they go on a road trip to hide from the draft board in the summer of '69. (I just couldn't resist ;))

Okay, I know I said no more Kiefer Sutherland movies, and I was serious. I put two movies on the exempt list, Desert Saints and Behind the Red Door. 1969 was not among them. Em protested for it, but I apparently gave it the air back hand. That said, I was channel surfing before I was supposed to go to Em's house one night, and I saw Flatliners and 1969 after it. As if, I thought, as if. So I checked the program description, and, sure enough, it was the right 1969. Now, let's think about this: If I has seen that 1969 was on, didn't tell Em, and cracked and told her later (as I likely would), she would have given me a back hand and not an air one. So I told her, and she came over. So you can't really hold me responsible, now can you?

Here's what's worse: this movie is pretty darn good. Can you imagine it, a good Kiefer Sutherland movie? Blows your mind, doesn't it? It's hard to describe, actually. The films occurs on multiple levels, and I cannot begin to describe them to you now. Serious, it's a multifaceted plot. Which I think is high praise of Ernest Thompson's screenplay and direction. It's like he wants you to experience first hand everything that you may have missed.

Sutherland's his usual talented self, and I'm right now trying to remember if I have had a chance to talk about Downey Jr. yet. I don't think so. Drug addiction aside, Downey Jr. is crazy talented. I mean it. His performances are effortless, shocking, charming, and balanced. It's almost as though he can perform a waltz through his acting on the screen. Wow, I had no idea I thought so highly of him.

The film's one downfall is Winona Ryder. She's actually not that bad in this film, but she has absolutely no chemistry with Sutherland. In fact, she has more chemistry with Downey Jr. In any case, there is nothing more boring to watch than a romantic pairing with no chemistry.

The strange thing about this film is that it is multi-layered yet it is plotless. Does that make sense? I suppose not. Perhaps you'll just have to see it for yourself, if you can ever find it in a video store.

Great Expectations (1998)

Summary: After being left at the alter, Ms. Dinsmoor (Anne Bancroft) teaches her niece, Estella (Gwyneth Paltrow), to break men's hearts. Her premiere project is a painter, Finn (Ethan Hawke), who inexplicably becomes the recipient of a large endowment years later and pursues both his art and his love in New York.

Okay, I found that really hard to sum up. It's actually not that complex a plot, but I felt like if I wrote anything that I was actually thinking it would give it all away. There should be some element of surprise, I hope.

That said, today is the first time in what seems like a long time that I have actually read the book and seen the movie. Charles Dickens is fantastic, I cannot deny it, but this is not a film version of his great novel. This is an adaptation of his work: the characters and the plot are basically the same, but they are obviously set in a completely different world. Plus, the characters of Finn and Pip are merged, which saves time and energy. Mitch Glazer's screenplay is in keeping with the themes and characterizations of Dickens', but Glazer's Estella is a wee bit nicer, if you can believe it.

Paltrow's performance is ever-so-slightly uninspired, and we all know that I'm not going to talk about Hawke. (Stupid talent and good looks! Stupid!) Bancroft chews up the scenery as the insane aunt, positively stealing every scene she's in. I didn't mention it before, but two of my fav actors are also in this film: Robert DeNiro and Chris Cooper. Anyone ever is lucky to share the screen with DeNiro, and I think that Cooper has begun to bring his slow burn to a boil. I wait with bated breath to see where he goes next.

I could marry Emmanuel Lubezki and Alfonso Cuaron for their cinematography and direction, respectively. Paradiso Perduto is a fantasy wonderland, and the entire film is alive in green. Everything, everywhere is green, a million different beautiful and stirring shades at once. I am overwhelmed by it.

If you just want to know what happens in the novel, get Cliffs Notes. If you are seeking more for what Dickens was suggesting, take a peek at what this film has to offer.

Don Juan DeMarco (1995)

Short: Dr. John Mickler (Marlon Brando) attempts to "cure" a man (Johnny Depp) who believes he is the legendary lover Don Juan, while using his life story to revitalize his own life, including his relationship with his wife (Faye Dunaway).

Yay! Another one of April's guilty pleasures. How can you not like a movie that is so unabashedly cheesy, so shamelessly silly? I know I sure do!

I've only ever seen one other thing that Jeremy Leven has written (The Legend of Bagger Vance), and he's never directed anything else, so it's hard to say. All I can tell you, for now, is that he's very cheesy and silly. That's important, for a good fantasy movie must have a sense of whimsy in order to work.

As for the performances, let's see . . . Depp is the most under-appreciated actor in Hollywood today (that Oscar nod was far overdue). He always chooses off-colour roles like this one for himself, and he goes after them with gusto. Besides, who passes up a chance to work with Brando? Honestly, who does that?

Brando, and I didn't even know this was possible, is hysterical as Dr. Mickler. And can I just say that Dunaway looks stunning? She seriously is just so beautiful; I don't care how old she is. Oh, yeah, her acting is great too.

Also, three cheers for the ridiculous Bryan Adams song that goes with this movie: "Have you ever really loved a woman?" A friend's mom hates it, but it just kills me because it's so over the top.

I was just now trying to figure out how to sum up today's post, and I've got nothing. Seriously, it's so cheesy and hilarious, I just had to mention it.

Pick: Seabiscuit definitely deserved its seven Oscar nods. Heartwarming to the very core.
Pan: Under the Tuscan Sun had no reason to be so long. Oh, wait, the reason was to be boring as well.

Happy Accidents (2000)

Brief: Ruby (Marisa Tomei) falls hard for Sam (Vincent D'Onofrio) but becomes suspicious when he claims that he's a "back traveler" from the year 2470.

Oh, late night IFC. Late night IFC, for me anyway, means one of two things: a really, really horrifying movie or a really, really, good movie. Care to fathom a guess as to which it was?

It was really, really good!

Now, the description on the guide listed it as a "romantic comedy", which I don't really think it was. It wasn't so much on the funny side, unless you count Nadia Dajani (Gretchen), who I feel is terribly underrated and should be in more films. Tomei is amazing, passionate, and pure. D'Onofrio has come a long was since the first thing I remember seeing him in: as the Edgar suit in Men in Black. Sure, I've seen him in a lot of other things that came before and since, but that's how I was first introduced to him. And I like him. D'Onofrio maintains a child like innocence about him as Sam, which translates like poetry upon the screen.

I also like Brad Anderson, the writer and director. I've never seen anything else he's done, and I am willing to discover more.

What happened to me during the movie is that I stopped caring whether or not what Sam claimed was true. The whole plot was wrapped up in this question, and I very much felt like I was just along for the ride. I guess at that point it didn't make any difference to me because I was enjoying it so much.

Matchstick Men (2003)

Plan: An obsessive-compulsive con artist, Roy (Nicholas Cage), reunites with his daughter, Angela (Alison Lohman), while he and his partner, Frank (Sam Rockwell) prepare for a long con.

Not the best Ridley Scott movie I've ever seen. It's sweet and hilarious, and, if you look at it right, like all his movies, everything works exactly out as it should. He's a great director, and I don't have any specific cause for complaint. I just know he can do better (e.g. Gladiator).

Nicholas and Ted Griffin's screenplay is sweet, funny, dramatic, and thrilling. I enjoyed every minute of it. As for their adaptation of Eric Garcia's book, I don't know. I seem to be writing a lot lately about movies that started out as book, and I never seem to have read any of them. It's not that I don't read, but I read hilarious British diary novels, classic literature, and political satire. It's not really the stuff movies are made of.

The performances are spot on. Cage is at the top of his game, Lohman is charming, and I love Rockwell. I like everything I've seen him in. He's really coming into his own, and I can wait to see where he goes next.

Okay, here's the thing you must understand about this movie. Actually, here's the thing you need understand about the grift: if you aren't conning, then you are getting conned. It's that simple. Keep it in mind.

Mystic River (2003)

Plot: Three childhood friends become reconnected when Jimmy's (Sean Penn) daughter is murdered, Sean (Kevin Bacon) is assigned to the case, and Dave (Tim Robbins) is suspected.

I know, I know, this entirely breaks my "no critically acclaimed movies" rule because there is I could add nothing to what has already been said. Even so, I saw this film yesterday at the Bytowne, and I feel compelled to comment. At first, the only thing I knew about this film was Penn screaming "IS THAT MY DAUGHTER IN THERE?! IS THAT MY DAUGHTER IN THERE?!" over and over again while eight or nine police officers (no exaggeration) hold him back. Then Bacon gave him a look, and Penn changed to "NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!", with eight or nine police officers holding him down. Finally, I heard somewhere that short plot description that I shared with you.

Remember before when I said that Clint Eastwood should direct everything, then took it back? Well, I'm taking back my take back: Clint Eastwood should direct everything. I find myself at a loss to describe the haunting power of this film, or the knock out performances he pushes his actors to. Penn very rightly deserved his Oscar, especially since he has been robbed in the past.

And, get this, Eastwood scored the movie, too. And the score's really good. Is there anything this man cannot do? Is there? I think not.

So, when you get a chance to see this movie, you should pounce on it. I mean it, be all up ons. It truly is a masterpiece with amazing and awe-astounding performances.

Bright Lights, Big City (1988)

Outline: Following a confused cocaine user (Michael J. Fox) over the course of a week, during which his absentee wife (Phoebe Cates) returns home, he gets fired from his job, and culminating with the first anniversary of his mother's (Dianne Weist) death.

This movie is so stupid. It's boring and awful. Look at us, we are doing lines. Look at us, we are buying more cocaine. Look at us, we aren't even really addicts (as he gets through some time without going through withdrawal), we just don't want to bother with our lives. Stupid, boring, and awful. The most exciting parts were the sub-headings for each day. See, Fox is supposed to be a writer, so each day begins with a type written disclaimer. Trust me, the six or seven of them are the most interesting parts of the film.

Also, Cates' character is a famous model. Everyone talks about how great she looks, how beautiful she is. Don't get me wrong, she's a pretty girl, but there's no way she would be a model. It's the late 80s, so that means we are closing in on the rise of the super model. That considered, she wouldn't have made it. I know this sounds kind of mean. The point I am trying to make is that the film is poorly cast. The only thing believable about Cates is that she would have married Fox, who is, as always, winsome.

The screenplay, written by Jay McInerney, was based on his best selling novel of the same name. Something has got to have been lost in the translation from page to screen because this story should not be a bestseller. As for the direction, well, I've never see anything else James Bridges has done, and I feel bad saying stuff about him considering that and the fact that he's dead.

Also, what was the point of having Kiefer Sutherland as Fox's only friend. He's character has few scenes, and they aren't at all interesting. I don't get why he is the second name billed and the put him on the box. This movie is one of many that has prompted me to go on a Kiefer Sutherland fast. I don't care how sexy or talented he is, he has made scores of crap movies, and I don't want to bother with them anymore.

Overall, you have no reason to want to see this movie. I mean it - even if you read the book, you shouldn't bother with this movie.

A Time to Kill (1996) and Runaway Jury (2003)

Premise 1: After the rape and attempted murder of his ten year-old daughter, Carl Lee Hailey (Samuel L. Jackson) decides to take the law into his own hands and kills the two men accused before they ever go to trial. He turns to Jake Tyler Brigance (Matthew McConaughey) to defend him, and Brigance does, with the help of a beautiful law student (Sandra Bullock), a lecherous divorce lawyer (Oliver Platt), and his alcoholic former boss (Donald Sutherland).

Premise 2: After her husband his gunned down, a woman (Joanna Going) sues the gun company. Wendall Rohr (Dustin Hoffman) takes the case, and the gun company hires Rankin Fitch (Gene Hackman) to help them select the best possible jury for them by any means possible. Meanwhile, Nick Easter (John Cusack) infiltrates the jury and, with the help of Marlee (Rachel Weisz), offers up the jury to the highest bidder.

N.B.: Yes, this is two movies in the same blog. Two John Grisham movies. And that's the point.

Here's my beef with John Grisham: he's the male equivalent of Danielle Steele. I'm not saying his court room dramas are the same as her romance novels. I hear he does amazing things with character development. Or was that Tom Clancey? In any case, he churns out what is basically the same story over and over again, and people buy in scores. Then, they get made into movies which even more people flock to in droves. So I'm wondering . . . why?

It isn't plot. All the plots are exactly the same. In fact, in these two movies, the juries hand back one hundred percent implausible verdicts. Oh, and outside sources that wish to control the outcome of the trial terrorize the people involved. Oh, look, plot twists. True to life? On the first count: no. On the second two: yeah.

And it sure isn't the characters. Could they be more one dimensional? See, you think they are interesting and complex at first because of all the crazy things happening to them. But, the plot will tell you, time and time again that they good guys are rewarded and the bad guys end up angry and alone. Good guys never comprise their morals (even if it seems like they are going to or seems like they already have), and bad guys are completely immoral, willing to hurt anyone or anything as long as it will benefit their "cause". (N.B. "White power" isn't a cause. Not at all. Because whites always have the power. Seriously, how many really oppressed white people do you know who have to suffer under the oppression of blacks? None? How about Hispanics? None, again, eh? Surely Asians/Southeast Asians, right? Really? None. Except for rare exceptions such as white slavery? I never would have guessed.)

Well, maybe it's the cast. A Time to Kill: Jackson, McCounaughey, Bullock, Platt, Sutherland, Kiefer Sutherland, Charles Dutton, Brenda Fricker, Ashley Judd, Kevin Spacey, the list goes on and on. It's a star-studded extravaganza! Runaway Jury: Cusack, Hoffman, Hackman, Weisz, Bruce McGill, Jeremy Piven, Jennifer Beals, Luis Guzman, Dylan McDermott, etc. A Time to Kill beats Runaway Jury by one name listed. Still, an impressive lot.

Okay, one point for cast. What about direction? Joel Schumacher is responsible for A Time to Kill, and his filmography is nothing to shake a stick at. Frankly, he's the thriller writer's dream come true. Runaway Jury's Gary Fleder hasn't quite got the experience of Schumacher (19 to 5), but his previous works, Don't Say a Word and Kiss the Girls show that he's no slouch in the director's chair. Yet another man that knows the balance between action and thriller, providing carefully measured doses of both.

Okay, we are up to two negatives and two positives. That puts us back at zero. So what is it then? Both movies have different screenwriters and composers, which are the only other points of comparison I can come up with. And that leads to my dilemma: I know all these bad things about these two movies, yet I like both. They are really quite good. I asked someone whose opinion on film I generally trust, and she admitted to liking not only these two John Grisham movies but also two others.

So far, here's the possibility I've come up with: Grisham offers a near perfect blend of reality and fantasy. The plots always seem based in reality, yet the events within can border on the ridiculous. They are the perfect escape movies: emotional, violent, sexy, sad. Just like I have judged his books: perfect for the airport, bus commute, or gym. All sorts of things are happening, yet they do not required your devoted and undivided attention. It's not the stream of consciousness stuff like James Joyce's Ulysses or T.S. Eliot's The Hollow Men. And that's okay. In fact, it's better than okay. It's great. Stream of consciousness isn't for everyone. And certainly not all the time. Grisham is then, I suppose, a divertissement.

Intolerable Cruelty (2003)

Brief: A bored divorce lawyer (George Clooney) falls for the soon-to-be-ex wife (Catherine Zeta-Jones) of his philandering client (Edward Herrmann). Although he initially finds her attractive, it isn't until he realizes what a creative gold-digger she is that she actually piques his interest.

The whole time I watched this move, I sighed, "Oh, Coens" in a delighted way. That said, if you don't like the Coens (freak!) or if you don't prepare yourself going into the movie by knowing and accepting that this is a Coen movie, then you aren't going to like it, and you might not get it. Not get it, you ask? But it's a romantic comedy? What's to get? Well, dear reader, that would be the purpose of Coen movies. They require you to suspend reality and move into their magical and sometimes frightening little world. Don't say I didn't warn you.

Clooney, having worked with the Coens before (O Brother, where art thou?), blazes on the screen with Zeta-Jones. He seems to be attempting a cross between Clooney and Jimmy Stewart under Frank Capra's direction, but it all works out. Any of the bumps are quickly put out whenever he and Zeta-Jones share the screen - white hot chemistry. White hot.

Of course, the more scheming Zeta-Jones gets, the more charming and desirable she becomes. Perfectly costumed, lighted, and made-up, Zeta-Jones becomes the object of anyone's affection that she chooses. Good for her.

Alright, this isn't the Coens best work. It's also not the best romantic comedy I have ever seen. It is, however, Coen through and through, and, if you are a fan, you'll get a real kick out of this feature.

You Can Count on Me (2000)

Short: When her wayward brother, Terry (Mark Ruffalo), returns home, Sammy (Laura Linney) suddenly dips into her wild side, commencing an affair with her boss (Matthew Broderick) while entertaining a marriage proposal from her boyfriend (Jon Tenney). Terry forms a bond with Sammy's precocious 8 year-old son, Rudy (Rory Culkin).

Oh, year 2000. Serious, such a good year for movies.

Okay, I know this movie goes against my plan on not commenting on critically acclaimed movies. I feel safe with this choice because I have a shiny new dollar that says most have never heard of it.

That said, Kenneth Lonergan is someone I like. He wrote and directed this quiet, unassuming drama. I can relate to the relationship between Terry and Sammy, which is at once strained and understanding. That I find, as I have never experienced the kind of loss they have, is a testament to Lonergan's writing prowess.

Linney completely deserved her Academy award nomination for best actress in this role. She is smart, sexy, silly, and still. Honestly, she knocked my socks off.

Ruffalo is doing pretty well for himself, I think. He's not entirely new to this business (first movie in 1993), but he's done pretty impressive things so far. One thing, though: you might become upset with his character. Terry is a child, and, despite the fact that he should be able to handle what Sammy asks of him, he doesn't know how to behave with other children. It's upsetting, yes, but also very sad.

Culkin is, of course, the best of the three. That kid is awesome.

For serious, 2000 was a fantastic year. This film is one worth seeing, and, what's more, it's worth seeing twice. Or maybe even thrice.

Dead Heat (2002)

Summary: Heart problems force a 35 year-old Boston cop (Kiefer Sutherland) to retire, and his wife (Radha Mitchell) gives him the boot. His ne'er-do-well step brother (Anthony LaPaglia) convinces him to buy a race horse and hire a jockey (Lothaire Bluteau) who's in deep with the mob.

I'm sitting here right now still laughing at this movie. You might think this means that the movie is funny, but you would be wrong. I'm laughing at how very bad this movie is. Mark Malone, the writer/director, shouldn't be making movies because he is not good at it. Harsh, perhaps, but true. Okay, I admit that I've never seen any more of his work. Luckily, I don't need to. I can tell just from this movie.

That said, as much as I love LaPaglia and Sutherland, their chemistry cannot save this train wreck. They are hilarious and a hoot to watch, and they let me use my talent where I turn any movie into a comedy. What - it's in the action section? What - it's rated R? Trust me, it's a comedy when I am there. Just like Sphere. Now, that was a comedy.

Also, what is with Patric Caird's score? Did he write it in the year 1986 for the band Limozeen? Those kinds of guitar riffs just don't bode well with the public today. And another thing! Who shot this movie? Last time I checked, Boston was pretty cool. I couldn't even tell this movie was in Boston! I'm not saying I have to see Harvard in every shot or the John F. Kennedy Library and Museum, but I can guarantee the place isn't as dull as it looked here. This film might as well have been set in Buffalo for all they did with cinematography.

To sum up: as an action movie = bad; as a comedy = good.

Ride with the Devil (1999)

Premise: After the murder of one of their fathers by Jayhawkers (Northern Allies), two best friends (Skeet Ulrich and Tobey Maguire) join the Bushwakers (Southern partisan fighters). In case it wasn't clear, it's the American Civil War. Oh, and Jack Bull Chiles (Ulrich) becomes involved with Sue Lee Shelley (Jewel).

Yup, Jewel was in a movie. To my knowledge, this is the only one. And she does a pretty good job. Not, I'd like to thank the Academy good, but now there's a bunch of screenplays on my doorstep good.

I actually thought it was about time I got around to reviewing a film of one of my top five directors: Ang Lee. I love Ang Lee. I don't know if I could name a single director who tells a story more beautifully than Lee. I love watching his movies. He captivates you with scenery, seduces you with setting, and then pitches perfect performances at you. Of course, I think James Schamus might have something to with it. He wrote this screenplay, and he wrote the screenplays for many of Lee's other pictures (The Ice Storm, Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon, Eat Drink Man Woman, among others). Okay, I wasn't going to mention this, but they are also responsible for Hulk, which counts as a big strike against them. I don't know what they were thinking. They are slow, emotional drama people, not comic book action movie people.

Maguire has shown himself to be a man of discernment. He is a talented young actor, and this piece gives him to the opportunity to showcase his quiet simplicity. He plays well off Ulrich and Jewel and does more than hold his own against powerful actors such as Tom Wilkinson and James Caviezel. Now that I think about it, I'm really digging Maguire as an actor. He's slowly coming into his own, balancing art house films with summer blockbusters. Very nicely done, Maguire.

Ulrich, on the other hand, I'm not so sure about. He makes some strange moves. I like him here, but I don't have a sense of what he is doing or where he is going. For right now, I will shrug him off until he has a chance to prove himself one way or the other.

One word of warning: the film's a bit long. I enjoy every minute of it, but, if you aren't prepared for Lee's pacing, you won't like it. In fact, you might fall asleep and not understand who's alive and who's dead when you come to. That said, it's a dead brilliant and beautiful movie.

Bamboozled (2000)

Short: Exasperated with coming up with PC programming for a black audience, an executive, Pierre Delacroix (Damon Wayans), suggests a return to the racist minstrel shows of the early days of television, starring a street hoofer, Manray/Mantan (Savion Glover), and his manager, Womack/Sleep 'n' Eat (Tommy Davidson). Much to his chagrin, the network goes for it.

I was thinking about Spike Lee yesterday, and it occurred to me that the stupid ramblings of a stoned teen in another of his movies, 25th Hour, are actually how I feel about Lee's filmmaking: he is truth. Well, not spiritual truth, but truth nonetheless. Sure, his tongue is firmly planted in his cheek. Let that idea not negate the fact that he is full willing to tell it like it is when everyone else wants to run and hide from the T. He wrote and directed this simultaneously hilarious and depressing escapade, and he tells it with as much honesty as he can considering the convoluted plot. Or is it?

I'm with Pierre's father on this one: where did he get that accent? Honestly, listening to him made me want to rip my ears off and throw them at the screen. Plus, he changes a kick name (Peerless Dothan) into a poncy French name. Yes, I get that that is a comment on what Pierre thought he would have to do to make it in the industry, but you can't fault me for getting upset about the denial of personal history.

Of course, the most hilarious/depressing part of the film (in my opinion) occurs when Pierre's boss, Thomas Dunwitty (Michael Rapaport), explains to Pierre that he is much more black. Yes, that's right, the white man tells the black man how to be more "black". How do these ideas occur to Lee? Do these sorts of things actually happen to him? You know what? I bet they do. And that makes me want to vomit.

Okay, I made the movie sound worse than it really is. It's really, really good, but it deals with the kind of stuff that can make me very upset. So, it might upset you. That shouldn't stop you from seeing it.