Change Your Image
clydefrogg
Reviews
Hustle & Flow (2005)
Possibly the best film of the year
About 30 minutes into Hustle and Flow, not only did I think Terrence Howard had already earned his Oscar nomination, but had already won it. In DJay, he creates a very deep and layered character capable of brutal violence and unexpected moments of compassion at times. But mostly, he's just a real guy caught up in unreal businesses pursuing a dream.
While Howard absolutely owns this film, the film is made great by the supporting cast that surrounds DJay, especially the women. In what is a very weak field of Supporting Actresses, both Taryn Manning (Nola) and Taraji Henson (Shug) would have been very worthy nominees this year. It is through these women (and the performances of the actresses) that we are able to see the gentler side of DJay. The moment where Shug tells DJay how much singing on the demo tape meant to her was one of the films best moments. As was the exchange between DJay and Nola as he's being arrested. Another great sequence happens when Key's wife Yevette (Elise Neal) gives up trying to fight her husbands dream and instead brings over the sandwiches. Every character in this film is deep and makes you care about them.
I thought that, towards the end of the third act, when things take a turn for the worse between DJay and Skinny Black, that the film briefly spiraled out of control and got a little away from itself. Thankfully, it reeled itself back in pretty quickly once DJay was in prison. Maybe the three minutes or so of brutal violence and gunshots could have been replaced with a different way of DJay being incarcerated.
Terrence Howard hooked me from the beginning and his performance didn't let me go until it was over. I was very much on the edge of my seat the whole time in a film that doesn't have much edge of your seat action. Hustle and Flow is frequently funny, dramatic, moving, shocking and sometimes all of them. And it's moral is that it's OK to have a dream and pursue it. And it doesn't do it in a hokey way. Unforgettable and possibly the best film of 2005.
Starting Over (1979)
excruciating
Almost every scene in this movie is painful to watch. While I won't deny James L Brooks his due as a producer and part creator of some great films and television over the years, his writing is downright awful. A (written by) James L Brooks (As Good as it Gets, Broadcast News, Terms of Endearment, Starting Over, etc) film is unmistakable in it's utterly amateurish and sophomoric written word and silly and predictable utilization of EVERY scene for some sort of dramatic effect. Characters sitting by the phone when it rings. Perfectly timed and delivered dialogue and speeches at the most dramatic of times (like Burt Reynolds saying the worst possible thing at the worst possible time when the worst possible person is perfectly within earshot). At his divorce group, Reynolds suddenly asks one of his groupmates for a ride to...Bloomingdales? Why? What sort of madcap happenings are going to take place there for seemingly no reason? Brooks refuses to let his audience get to really know, like or care about his characters because something HAS TO HAPPEN in EVERY scene. One dramatic punchline after another.
His "specialization" seems to be these talky, seasoned adult melodramas but his style of writing is so much more suited to comedy. As a result, his written words are neither funny nor dramatic. I don't like or care about any of the characters in this film. To make matters worse, Reynolds, Clayburgh and Bergen do nothing to rise above the material. I don't know what any of them see in any of the others, particularly Reynolds and Clayburgh. With the exception of As Good as it Gets, these movies are brutally written and acted and painful to watch. As Good as it Gets actually does rise above Brooks mainly because Jack Nicholson and Helen Hunt do manage to rise above the material.
And maybe I'm crazy, but about 15 or 20 minutes in, don't Reynolds and Clayburgh have a first date where he arrives at her apartment and they can't yet leave because the sitter hasn't arrived yet? Sitter for whom? Why, her two children, who he meets! After he takes her home, they seem to have another first date where the kids are no longer there and aren't seen or heard from for the rest of the movie. Did I miss something? The only good scene in the whole film was the breakup/goodbye scene between Clayburgh and Reynolds. The only well written and well acted dialogue in the film was when she makes him promise not to call her again. The last ten or fifteen minutes, when Reynolds finally gives up on his ex wife, are so stupid, I wanted to bury my head in a pillow. How in the world would he even know she was at the Boston Garden at that moment and how would he get in? God awful film.
Vera Drake (2004)
All substance, little style
Vera Drake is an all substance, little style story of the title character's life of "helping young girls" when they've "gotten themselves into trouble". In other words, performing abortions.
That this film is all substance and no style is not an insult in the least. The director, Mike Leigh, as he has in past films such as All or Nothing and Secrets and Lies, chooses to attack his material unlike just about any other director out there. He films a group of characters, and not just the principals, but friends and relatives and shows how they act and react to plot developments. Particularly in this film, Leigh never forces the plot along. He never tells the story with the gimmicks and drama that most other directors would employ with such material. He isn't judgemental or preachy and he doesn't move the story along until he's ready to. This may frustrate some viewers, even fans of Leigh's like myself. But I know that he chose to tell this story in such a fashion for a reason.
Vera Drake is the story of a London woman in 1950 who has a big heart and a lot of responsibility. To her husband. To her children. To her mother. To her job checking light bulbs. And her job as a domestic in several households. Oh yeah, and to her noble cause of secretly ending pregnancies prematurely, or as she puts it "starting the bleeding again". For roughly half the film, we are painted a picture of this woman's busy but relatively routine life. Then, one day, one of Vera's "clients" develops serious complications shortly after her procedure and nearly dies. Eventually, the police discover that Vera was responsible and come calling for her.
Make no mistake about it, and Leigh does not in this film: Vera is a criminal. She performs abortions. One went horribly wrong and Vera is responsible for nearly killing a young girl. These are facts, and while Vera has nothing but good intentions about her work, she is guilty. Most films and most directors would say "She's guilty, BUT....". I kept waiting for an explanation as to why the girl REALLY almost died, like a heart problem or something unrelated to what Vera did. It never comes. There is no "but" here. Because the film is not complicated by a "but", Leigh is left to spend the last half of the film showing real life. How Vera reacts to the news of the girl. How she reacts to arrest. How her family reacts when they learn the truth. How life will or won't go on without her when she inevitably goes to jail.
The real shining parts of this film are at Vera's home. She has a loving husband who is devastated by the news. An aloof daughter who is borderline mentally handicapped. A spirited son who is appalled by his mothers actions. And a loyal brother in law and unpleasant sister in law. These scenes at home paint a real picture of life and how people react to it.
Along the road to justice, Vera encounters detectives, lawyers and judges who, in other films, might be villainous. They are not in this film. They are all just doing their jobs, and while they feel sympathy towards Vera because they realize she is good at heart, she has broken the law and must be questioned, prosecuted, judged and sentenced.
The final scenes of the film captures it perfectly overall. Vera is in jail for committing a crime and she's not at home with her family. That's all Vera Drake is about, really. Another film by another director might make a stand on the issue of abortion, villify Vera Drake, martyr Vera Drake, protest Vera Drake. Not Mike Leigh and not this film. Which is what makes his direction of "little style" so superb and the film an excellent one. The performances are also outstanding, but my only real criticism of the film comes from Imelda Staunton's performance as Vera. She may be the worst fake cryer/sobber that has ever acted.
Pieces of April (2003)
Fantastic
There's almost nothing more satisfying than getting a great deal out of a film you had expected little from. That's my experience with Pieces of April. At a scant 80 minutes, it's hard to believe a film could produce two excellent story lines and a half a dozen great characters, but this one does. And in the end, Pieces delivers an enormously emotional payoff that works not because it's been written to work, but because you like and care for the characters so much.
April Burns (Katie Holmes) is a problem child, no doubt about it. She's 21, living with her boyfriend in a highly sketchy area of NYC, and estranged from her entire family, except her father. We learn some of the reasons why April's family has abandoned her emotionally, but after meeting April and then meeting her family, it's really not hard to see why things are the way they are. As for April's family, first and foremost, her mother (Patricia Clarkson) is dying of breast cancer. The story revolves around that fact, both directly and indirectly. The whole purpose for April's family making the road trip from Pennsylvania to NYC is that it may be her mom's last Thanksgiving, and the last chance for April and her mother to resolve their issues. April's father Jim (Oliver Platt) serves as an orchestrator of sorts, doing what he has to do to make sure this day happens.
April is young and blissfully naive in believing she can put together a Thanksgiving feast for her entire family. But she's incredibly determined to do it, despite the obstacles of not having a working oven or any idea of what she's doing. Comedic moments include "stuffing" the turkey with store bought stuffing, and entire onions and stalks of celery. Heartwarming moments come as she searches her apartment building for people who will let her use their oven. A wonderful middle aged black couple take pity on her and let her use their oven for a while, and teach her that despite the poverty that everyone in the building shares, Thanksgiving is no time to short change yourselves when it comes to the food. She also encounters a weird guy upstairs named Wayne, and an Asian family who doesn't understand Thanksgiving who also take pity on her predicament.
The entire cast is outstanding, especially Patricia Clarkson. Again, her illness and how she deals with it is the driving force of the film. It allows Oliver Platt, Allison Pill and John Gallagher as her family great performances, as well, showing how they deal with her.
The main criticism of Pieces of April seems to be the subplot involving April's boyfriend Bobby (Derek Luke). He's a very likable, bright and well spoken black man April's age who helps her out in the apartment at first, then goes off on some mysterious task. Ultimately, the task is proved to make Bobby more endearing, but along the way, the film makes this quest seem like Bobby is up to no good. I understand the criticism people have, wondering why Bobby can't just be the great guy he seems to be without having to sidestep movie stereotypes about black youth. I also understand what the writer/director (Peter Hedges) is going for, and while I believe he ultimately succeeds in making his point, I don't believe it's a point that should have been or needed to be made. It's not the crash and burn that some critics make it out to be, however.
Roger Ebert was critical of the ending of this movie, speculating that the reason for the snapshots of what ultimately happens as opposed to actually filming the conclusion is that Hedges may have ran out of money. I believe that the phrase "a picture is worth a thousand words" applies here. The snapshots (which, incidentally, fit into the context of the film since April's brother has been taking pictures the entire time) provide Hedges a good way to convey what he couldn't possibly write. April and her mother are so far apart, a wordy epilogue is impossible. The only thing for April and her family to do under these circumstances is just forgive and forget, no questions asked. Hedges knows the gravity of the situation and knows that if things were other than what they are, reconciliation would be long and painful. Simple snapshots tell us all we need to know.
The fact that Hedges more or less merged two different real life tales into Pieces of April, and did it in a simple and subtle way tells me he wasn't trying to make a sappy tearjerker. For those reasons, he is successful in doing just that. Pieces of April is instantly one of my favorites and should definitely not be dismissed as a Katie Holmes Gets Paid movie, as was my preconceived notion.
Return of the Secaucus Seven (1980)
Dreadful
I wish I could put my finger on exactly what it is about films like this that I loathe so much. Return of the Secaucus 7, The Big Chill, Rules of the Game, Gosford Park, The Anniversary Party. One after another, these long winded ensemble reunion/get-together films both bore and enrage me with their awful scripts and even worse acting.
Return of the Secaucus 7 is perhaps the best (or worst) example of a genre of film-making that's arguably destined to fail as soon as the opening credits end. It's just an awful, boring script and it's no wonder that very few of the "actors" went on to any kind of a career in film. These people memorized their lines and started filming. There is no passion or emotion in any of the dialogue. I was reminded over and over again of the sequence of scenes in Reservoir Dogs where Tim Roth is urged to memorize, and then make his own, an anecdote about a drug deal. His mentoring police officer tells him that it's not enough to just memorize the story. He has to know all the little details. He has to make the story utterly believable. And as the sequences unfold and he practices telling the story over and over, he is able to do just that. In Secaucus, ALL of the actors read their lines as if they've just committed them to memory. It always seems as though during the conversations in this film, the person not talking is ready to speak their next line before the other person is done speaking theirs. It's an indictment on not only the actors, but on the director.
The Secaucus 7 are a group of seven friends who were wrongfully busted and detained on their way to a protest rally of the Vietnam War. This film is a reunion of the 7 (plus a few others) about 10 years later. Nothing too dramatic or exciting, and certainly not anything that most rational people would feel the need to reunite and reminisce for. All of this is revealed in synopsises you may read, and with about 10 minutes left in the film. So we watch these characters reunite for an hour and a half, but don't have any real basis as to what they have in common. At least in all of the aforementioned films above, there is a reason for the gathering of people. This is not a particularly believable reunion.
The formula for these reunion ensembles seems to be as follows: Take a large group of pretentious dysfunctional mostly unlikeable middle aged adults with emotional and relationship problems and make them talk to each other about them for two hours. With a bad script. Oh, yeah. I can see why people like them.
Collateral (2004)
Disappointing
Collateral, despite the praise lavished by many, is a well acted, but very mediocre thriller. Spoilers contained within.
It opens up with an outstanding scene between Jamie Foxx and Jada Pinkett Smith that is well written, well thought out and takes it's time developing.
Smith, in particular, pauses and chooses her words carefully as a woman would in a real situation like this. It's not the typical "meet cute" where the conversation's outcome is never in doubt.
Then, Cruise gets into Foxx's cab and pays him $600 for the night to drive him around to the five assassinations he has to complete. I really appreciate(d) the idea behind Collateral, the developing relationship between Max and Vincent. I thought Cruise was pretty good as Vincent throughout, and Foxx was really good as Max throughout. Mann's direction lends a lot to insight, with closeups and distorted and unusual viewpoints used throughout. Finally, I like the idea of a hit man having a cabbie drive him from hit to hit. So what's my problem with Collateral? Two things, both pretty big in my opinion, that I would probably dismiss in a lesser thriller, but that I won't forgive in one that's trying to rise above it's genre.
First, and maybe Tarantino has molded or distorted my idea of what a
professional killer should be, but Vincent is not much of a professional. Yeah, he's terrific with a gun and sure, he's obviously got some kind of specialized hand to hand combat training, but he just doesn't have it emotionally. Pretty much by definition, you can't be a "professional" killer (who's obviously highly paid) and avoid being whacked yourself or captured by authorities without being careful to a fault and never becoming emotionally involved in any way. The problem with the script in Collateral is that it picks and chooses the moments where Vincent exhibits these characteristics and the moments when he doesn't. He never seems to care if anyone is watching his actions or has seen him commit murder. He wears no disguise and makes no attempt to conceal his actions. He's not really in a hurry to escape from crime scenes. He's not concerned with the potential complications involved with killing people on public streets. Sometimes he trusts Max to do what he tells him to do, and sometimes he doesn't. The sum parts of this character just don't fit the equation. And I'm not talking about the various psychological elements of Vincent that the film tries to explore, like his warped view of life or his childhood. I'm talking about the rigorous demands of being a professional killer. I just didn't buy it in the end.
The second big problem I had was the subplot involving the various detectives trying to, and then piecing together the reason behind all the killing they're encountering this particular night. The following is not something you could say until you saw the film until the end, but this particular subplot affects the main plot in ABSOLUTELY NO WAY. While interesting to a degree and providing more interesting characters, the detectives (except for one brief moment) make no encounter with the two leads and don't affect their actions at all. This is something that bothered me more and more as I thought about it. They may as well have instead had a subplot involving the man who hired Vincent to do the killings, or a subplot involving the jazz club owner. It wouldn't have made a difference. While interesting, the subplot in this case adds nothing to the big picture except making the film's main story go from credible to implausible.
I'm referring, of course, to the shootout at the nightclub involving the fourth hit. Both Vincent and the police know who the target is before Vincent gets to the club. One of the detectives even orders "get him out of there". But for some inexplicable reason, not only is he still sitting at his table when Vincent arrives, no attempt has been made or is being made to "get him out of there". Didn't understand that, nor did I understand how a small army of trained capable detectives and LAPD are unable to capture, take down, slow down or even tap Vincent on the shoulder as he executes a dozen people, including the witness. It's like they weren't even there, but they were. What were they doing? How did Vincent possibly get out of that? And they didn't leave the cab sitting in the middle of the street when they went in, so how the hell was it sitting there waiting for them to escape in? And while I'm at it, don't the bars and clubs in LA close at 2AM? It had to be well after 3AM by the time all this went down.
Again, these are all things that I wouldn't sweat in a typical silly action movie. I'd just watch it, give it a C- or worse, and move on. But this film aspires to be much more, and it really isn't.
The ending is, of course, predictable, with the final target being Smith, Max's earlier fare. Though there wasn't much to write home about in this resolution, it wasn't bad and I don't think it made the movie any better or worse. Foxx saves the day by himself, in what is at least a 20-30 minute (real time) sequence AFTER the cops have been called to the scene where you'd have to assume that a huge area manhunt would be underway for both Max and Vincent. Not a single cop ever comes near the vicinity, however.
Collateral has a lot going for it, but unfortunately more taking away from it. C.
Open Water (2003)
Great
I don't really understand all the criticism of this film. It presents a riviting story in ways that are rarely used and ways that are never used.
While not really "scary", Open Water is a suspense/horror film that abandons all typical cliches of the genres. Not only of the suspense/horror genre, but most films in general. Very little setup, very little buildup. Nothing gratuitous or unnecessary (except maybe Blanchard's nude scene). Open Water knows what it wants to show and gets to it as quickly as possible while still being coherent. The dialogue written, as well as it's execution by the two principals, is as realistic as anything you'll ever see on film, both before and during their plight at sea. I loved the subtle quick establishing shots of both location and situation. There is a simple and plausible explanation for how two people could have been left behind that you wouldn't find in a typical script, although, for a couple of reasons that the characters even cite while at sea, I find it hard to believe that it would take as long as it does for anyone to realize what has happened.
Open Water is a concept film (I love to see concept films). Films that take an unusual situation, whether plausible (this film) or not (Groundhog Day), and explore all the angles before settling on the conclusion. What are the different things that the characters are going to do and say. Instead of the linear plot you find in most films, you have a zig zag plotline and you don't know where the final zig or zag is going to go until the end. The two characters run the gamut of emotional, mental and physical responses to the horrifying situation they find themselves in. The writer/directors and the actors are all on the same page in Open Water.
What really makes this film great is the ending (no spoilers). I had NO idea what was going to happen in the end, up until the final frame. Can't really say anything else without giving anything away.
Anyone who can't find the good or great in Open Water must just prefer by the book cookie cutter Hollywood productions. And there's nothing necessarily wrong with those films. I love them as much as the next guy. But closing your mind to an exploration like this is just wrong. Having been on a diving tour of a coral reef off a Carribean island resort, this film really hit home.
Baby Doll (1956)
Morbid existence
If there's one thing I always think when I see any work of Tennessee Williams, it's "I'm glad I'm not them". In addition to creating some of the most dispicably unlikeable characters in theatre, television and film history, he places them in an existence so morbid and depressing that you can't help but excuse them for their personality and behavior.
Baby Doll, William's only work written for the screen, is no exception. In fact, the characters within may be the grand marshalls of the parade of depravity and debouchery he created over the years in such films (plays) as Cat on A Hot Tin Roof, Night of the Iguana, Streetcar, Glass Menagerie, Rose Tatoo and Suddenly Last Summer.
Set in a sweaty nondescript white trash town in Mississippi, "Baby Doll" is Carroll Baker, the beauty to Karl Malden's beast. On the exterior, anyway. Inside, they're both beasts. She is an absolutely breathtaking 19 year old who is married to Archie Lee (Malden). However, they will not consumate their marraige until she turns 20, per an arrangement. Baby Doll is a shallow and stupid girl who careens through her life without considering the consequences of her actions. Archie Lee is a total loser, owning a worthless broken down cotton gin that has lost all it's business to the "syndicate" gin, owned by Eli Wallach. Malden burns Wallach's gin down one night, and Wallach shows up at Malden's house the next day, suspicious and looking for evidence of the truth. He ends up taking a lot more...(no spoilers)
Carroll Baker and Mildred Dunnock (her aunt) received Oscar nominations for their efforts, but this is truly Wallach's film. He is the film's antagonist to Malden's antagonist on paper, but in reality, the roles are reversed. He plays a devilishly charming villain who we want to see succeed in the end. Not only was he robbed of a nomination for this role, but probably should have won. You've got to hand it to the Academy. Perhaps they felt like the 500,000th performance of Bus Stop warranted Don Murray some consideration.
Elia Kazan deserved some consideration, too. The direction is more alive than the characters in Baby Doll. I don't know if any director ever worked better with black and white than Kazan. This is a really trashy story that's made into somewhat of a spectacle because of Kazan.
Despite all the attention given this film in 1956 by Catholic legions and it's subsequent banning, it's really not that bad, even by the standards of that day. You'll find innuendo much worse in films from the 30s and 40s. The only difference here is Baker's scantily clad body and the fact that Kazan sort of throws it in your face. Close up and impossible to mistake, whereas ten years earlier, maybe you wouldn't have been so sure about what you were seeing and hearing. Ten years later, with the code all but out the window, this film really could have created a commotion.
The African Queen (1951)
Bogart's finest performance (spoilers)
The African Queen is one of the finest films ever made, and one of my personal favorites. It is the story of love born between two unlikely human beings amidst intense battles against nature and Ze Germans. Charlie Allnut (Bogart) and Rose Sayer (Hepburn) have no business ever even speaking to each other under normal circumstances. He being the gruff, unkempt lush Canadian "captain" of a one man ship, The African Queen, and she being the somewhat haughty, prim and proper British sister of a missionary killed by the Germans in Africa in the first World War. The film is the story of their worlds meeting during a journey towards the destruction of the German's most powerful ship in Africa.
What is it that makes this film so great? It's all Bogart and Hepburn. Of the roughly 105 minutes of film, it's them and them alone for about 90. Arguably, no two actors have ever solely carried a film this good by themselves. Both, especially Bogart, lose themselves in the roles completely. Of immense help was, of course, director John Huston and the decision to go into Africa and not a Hollywood backlot or LA area river to do the filming. The river and the jungle's harshly real environment made Bogart and Hepburn's performances all the better. I could praddle on and on about why Bogart and Hepburn are so great in this film, but there are two key moments that sum it all up for me. Both may seem unordinary overall, but say all that needs to be said about the two characters. The first is when Rose, who has been calling (Bogart) "Mr. Allnut" for as long as she has known him, realizes she doesn't know his first name. He tells her "It's Charlie". She gets a big smile on her face and repeats "Charlie...that's a nice name". Something about her demeanor when she says that displays, to me, an extraordinary joy and affection, maybe even love, for Charlie that her words perhaps do not. Later, after Charlie and Rose have successfully navigated some white water rapids that seemed impossible to get through, Charlie grabs Rose, kisses her, and shouts "Hip Hip Horray!" Again, there's something about the way Bogart does it that conveys to me the same joy, affection and love for Rose that she did earlier when repeating his name.
Again, these two moments seem relatively insignificant in the context of the whole movie. But in my opinion, they make the movie. In this movie, as with most others, it's hard to give a damn about what characters say or do if you don't give a damn about them. And those moments make me care about these two characters in a way that I ordinarily never would. I shudder to think what results Bette Davis and David Niven, both fine actors, would have had with this film
The ending of the film is, of course, implausible. Without revealing anything, what are the odds of things happening as they did? But who cares. By the end, we as viewers should and would be ecstatic if Rose and Charlie were simply able to marry before their execution. The boat ultimately blowing up and both our heroes coming out married and alive is icing on the cake. The film ends with us knowing that despite what Keanu Reeves says, a relationship between two people who meet under extreme circumstances can work out.
Also, Robert Morley's brief performance as Rose's brother is memorable, as are most all of his performances. And Bogart scene with the leeches is as horrifying as the same scene in Stand By Me kids is funny.
Love Story (1970)
Good, but disappointing
I remember back when I was about 16 years old (I'm 28 as of this writing), and seeing a book on my parents bookshelf called "Love Story" by Erich Segal. That book, along with many others that I never had any interst in, had been collecting dust on that bookshelf for as long as I could remember. That day, I was bored and felt like reading something, so I picked it up and thought I'd read it real quick (it's very short). I knew nothing about the book, the author, or the movie at the time. I ended up being quickly drawn into it and had it finished very quickly. I loved the book, and naively thought "What a great movie that would make". Even though I knew nothing about film and had relatively little interest in it, I thought the book would be very easy to adapt to a movie and I had a lot of great ideas about who would play the roles, how I would alter the dialogue, etc, etc. However, I was only 16 and lost interest fairly quickly. But I did love the book and would think to myself (and only myself) "Someday...someday..."
About four or five years later, when I was in college, I saw something shocking on the shelves of a local video store and I was crushed. You see, I still hadn't given up on my dream of writing Love Story for the screen, but there it was. And it had been done nearly 30 years earlier. I immediately abandonned plans to rent Mallrats and rushed home to see how my vision had ultimately played out.
I enjoyed the Arthur Miller/Segal adaptation, but was disappointed for a number of reasons. Over the years, as my knowledge of film has dramatically increased, I still find myself with the same complaints about Love Story that I had many years ago. The biggest problem I have with it is the haphazard way it plows through the first part of the book, basically Oliver and Jenny's meeting, courtship and engagement. That early part of the book is so critical because it's there that we meet Oliver and Jenny and see (read) their banter and bickering quickly evolve into love and infatuation. Emotionally, I was hooked by the book at that point. I cared about the characters enough to be seriously moved by later events. The film, in skipping so much early dialogue and interaction, doesn't give us the chance to make the same investment in the characters and it's hard to be moved as a result. This is through no fault of the two leads, Ryan O'Neal and Ali MacGraw, as the script doesn't give them a chance early on.
After Oliver and Jenny are married, the screenplay actually follows the me at of the books story almost to a tee, which is frustrating because I felt it was more important that it followed it to a tee early rather than later. It's not as though Love Story is a long film (barely 100 minutes) and needed to be pared down for time. Perhaps if I hadn't read the book and had simply seen the film, I wouldn't have these complaints and would have thought it as great as so many people did in 1970.
O'Neal and MacGraw as the leads have actually grown on me over the years. I knew of O'Neal when I first saw the film (from Irreconcileable Differences!), but had no idea who MacGraw was. Of course, neither would have been my choice at 16 to play the roles, but they do an admirable job with one serious exception: Almost without question, the most important line in the film is "Love means never having to say you're sorry", and it is spoken twice. Once by Jenny to Oliver and the other by Oliver to his father. Both O'Neal and MacGraw's deliveries of this line made me cringe before and still do. MacGraw's crying fit while she speaks the line is so nauseating that it makes the line almost comical. O'Neal speaks the line so matter-of-factly that it conveys no emotion or comprehension of what it means. The film definitely takes a serious hit because of it. The emotional punch that that line delivered in the book was lacking in the film first because of what I stated earlier, and second because of these terrible deliveries.
John Marley as Phil is a solid casting and his role in the film was one of the few things about it that didn't disappoint me, even when I didn't know who he was. Fortunately, I hadn't yet seen the Godfather either, so his more memorable scene from that film hadn't been permanently planted in my mind. Ray Milland tried to play Oliver III admirably, but was just too stiff. Unfortunately, that's probably what he was told to do, so I can't blame him. What seems to have been lost in the film version about this character was that he probably wasn't totally the old "sonofabtch" that Oliver IV thought he was in reality. That's how IV saw him, and that's how he ended up on screen. The emotion that III did exhibit in the book is lost onscreen.
This film is not bad by any means. Again, I actually enjoyed it, even the first time I saw it. It captures the spirit, the time and the location of the book very well. The leads play the characters very well. And the second half of the film is superbly adapted. But it was just utterly disappointing for me to see then, and now, the emotional wallup that the book contained almost entirely lost onscreen. Maybe a remake will be in order someday.
The Picture of Dorian Gray (1945)
Understated horror
The best horror movies, whether made today or sixty years ago, don't rely on blood and gore. And, as with any "best" or great film, they are timeless. It's hard to consider a classic (or modern) version of Frankenstein or Dracula to be a great horror film by that standard because today, it's more comical than scary. Any great film does not generally rely on props, gimmicks or cheap scare tactics, but on fine writing, direction and acting. Picture of Dorian Gray is a classicly understated horror film of the 40s in the same vein as Cat People, Gaslight, The Seventh Victim and even Rebecca, but succeeds where films like that did not.
Dorian Gray and those other films appear to be more drama than horror on the surface, but take a turn or introduce a horrific element into seemingly ordinary people or circumstances. In this case, a man wishes his portrait would age over time rather than himself. Perhaps not in and of itself scary, but when the man realizes his wish has been fulfilled, his mind and soul take actions he wouldn't have otherwise taken. And the portrait ultimately becomes a picture of inner appearance rather than outward.
Unfortunately, this film does not truly show us the depths to which Dorian Gray went to in order to turn into such a monstrous person. His actions are vaguely discussed and insinuated around London, but we don't know what he's really done. I think it's appropriate that we don't really know, but at least an inkling to his actions would have made the story even creepier. I'm not sure what Oscar Wilde revealed in his original story, but I'm curious to find out.
George Sanders shows as he always did in those days that he was the finest character and supporting actor of his time. I don't think there is any actor in the history of film that delivered their lines with his combination of intelligence, sophistication and wit.
Dorian Gray is probably the best of the dramatic horror films I've seen from the 40s and consistently delivers throughout, even when you think you're going to be let down.
Adaptation. (2002)
Missing the point (spoilers used with reckless abandon)
I don't know exactly how Charlie Kaufman (the real one) went about crafting this script, but it seems to me like he had a sudden epipheny where the entire story flashed before his eyes. Then, in a frenzy, he wrote it all in one setting. I don't want to use words like "brilliant" or "genius" to describe his work, because I think most films that fit that bill are trying to be just that. I think that Adaptation is just a remarkable coming together of an original script coupled with a couple of career performances. These guys should almost consider themselves lucky they pulled it off so well!
I won't even begin to delve into storylines or the myriad levels that Adaptation plays on. The first half is, as many others have said, a frenetic, but delicate sequence of images overshadowing the story. Nicolas Cage (the Gary Cooper of our era) gives unquestionably the performance of his career as the twin brothers. For the first time ever, I watched a film with (insert movie character) played by Nicolas Cage, not Nicolas Cage playing (insert movie character). Know what I mean? It's the sign of a great performance. Chris Cooper is the most deserving Best Supporting Actor Oscar winner since Denzel in Glory. He exemplifies another sign of a great performance, truly creating a character out of a written script.
While I was on the edge of my seat (unusual for a black comedy) during the first half, the abrupt turn the film makes had me dumbfounded for a while, and I think this is what, in scanning a number of user and external reviews, many people are missing. Most of the turns and parallels the story(ies) make throughout are spelled out to a degree. The biggest one, however, is not. The first half is art housesque. The second half is silly Hollywood, and it's intentional. The first half is Charlie's work, the second half is Charlie's work with "Donald"'s influence. Charlie has a lot of good things going with the script, but has nowhere else to go after a while. But he learns that if you just "wow 'em in the end", everything will be fine. So the bizarre turns the film makes in the second half are self mocking. You see it in Hollywood all the time. Changing Lanes comes immediately to mind. You've got all this great buildup, but in the final act, the script zigs and zags all over the place in absurd ways, and you're left with ruin.
None of this is rocket science and I'm not trying to make some great revelation about Hollywood scripts. Any hack could write a script that tries to scathe Hollywood by mocking one of its biggest flaws. The greatness in Adaptation lies in the characters and the framework of the story that Spike Jonze used throughout that pulls it off with such a flare.
Adaptation is not a revolutionary film like The Matrix, or a brilliant statement about society like The Grapes of Wrath or a great story that had to be told like Schindlers List. It's a minor gem that could have missed, but hits in a big way.
The Recruit (2003)
Hack job
Neither one of the two co-writers of this film are CIA washouts, I assume, since they've both had experience over the years doing other things (I checked). Still, this script has the feel of someone who washed out of the program after about two hours and felt like he knew enough to hack out a script about it. And that's basically what The Recruit is: a film about the CIA training program. Any semblence of a plot and third act were likely tacked on during a session of heavy drug use by the writers.
First, the good: Al Pacino is watchable in practically anything, and Colin Farrell is watchable, at least in this instance. And...well, that's it, I guess.
As for the bad and the ugly, the problem lies entirely within the script. It is utterly amateurish. Anyone who thinks that this is how the CIA operates is as childish as the writers. People like the character Farrell plays in this film (and the character Tom Cruise plays in The Firm) do not exist. You know, the person who manages to be a top of the class student while busting their A** at a thankless job while coming up with some way to change the world while balancing a love life and finding time to work out. Film characters like this are just like the supermodels that every girl wishes they looked like. Problem is, neither one is real.
Pacino plays basically the same character he's played in every film over the last ten or twenty years: a blue collar type with above average intellegence that always has something clever to say and likes to get angry. Its an old act, and it's made worse by the ridiculous things he does and says in this film, especially near the end.
Veiled spoilers: Speaking of the end, this is yet another in a long line of films that likes to use surprise endings. Only this script is like a drunken driver that keeps swerving all over the road. No sooner than the script twists in one direction, it twists in another. If we've learned anything from twist endings, it's that ONE GOOD TWIST is all you need. If you've built up a solid story to what appears to be a respectable conclusion, a dramatic twist works well. But in the Recruit, the writers use about three or four minor twists to try to hide the fact that their plot makes no sense, and to try and get us to forget what we've seen up until each particular twist. What makes the whole thing even worse is that you know the twists are coming. At no point in the third act did I think "This is it". I knew the hacks still had more up their sleeves.
I don't think a spy film has EVER been made that has (probably) accurately portrayed the life of a spy. Every one of them has to be a Bond film, or a facsimile thereof. They're all retreads. Just once, I'd like to see someone put some real thought and effort into a spy story. Hold the cliches and stupid love stories. Definitely, no spy film has ever been made without a love interest.
The Razor's Edge (1946)
Extremely well acted soap (spoilers within)
In the hands of a lesser producer and lesser actors, The Razor's Edge would have teetered dangerously close to bad melodrama, a la Douglas Sirk. However, this trite-on-the-surface film rises above the suds and is actually quite memorable, due entirely to an outstanding collection of performances.
At it's core, The Razor's Edge isn't much more than a story of a vain and shallow woman who longs for a life with a man who is not her husband. On the periphery, a war veteran searches for meaning in life while trying to serve others in the process. Tyrone Power is excellent throughout as the veteran, and really shines in a couple of scenes in particular, namely, when speaking of Sophie's death. Anne Baxter receieved a well earned Oscar for her portrayal of an emotionally distraught alcoholic. Her subtle performance, particularly in handling the alcoholism, earned her the award more than anything. Gene Tierney is the catty and caniving woman who longs for Power. Her performance is good, but the character does not provide the dynamics that several of the others do, and even as the lead actress, she seems more in the background than the fore. John Payne plays her husband, aloof out of necessity, and is similarly good playing a character of limited depth.
Clifton Webb practically reprises his role in Laura (1944), and steals the show, as he does in Laura. The Razor's Edge would aptly describe Webb's tongue in addition to Power's dilemma. Webb's deathbed scene should have garnered him the supporting Oscar, and I would imagine he was the most surprised when Harold Russell's name was announced for the second time at the '46 awards show.
There's not much to note in the film in the way of story or direction. The ensemble owns this film and is entirely the reason to see it.
Yentl (1983)
Leave Babs alone
When watching Yentl, there is one criticism that you have to throw to throw out immediately, or you will not make it. And this criticism applies to any film ever made about a man or a woman who tries to pretend he/she is of the other gender. Barbara Streisand/Yentl is a woman, not a man. She does not look like a man, no matter how hard she tries (and she didn't try very hard in this film). And those who make consistent close contact with he/she should be horse whipped for not knowing the difference. But I gradually just ignored that fact as the movie got better and better.
No one can deny that this is yet another vanity project for Babs. Or that the music in Yentl pretty much all sounds the same. Or that Babs has no problem showing overly gratuitous male nudity, but won't even give us a glimpse herself. But Yentl is a very deep character and film, which are always hard to come by. Not just of one character, but of three, which is really hard to come by. Babs herself is servicable as an actress, but it is Amy Irving and Mandy Pitakin who really shine in this film. Both really laid it all on the line. It shows, and they make this film.
As a writer, director and producer, Babs tries to make her mark (as she does in all her films), but who doesn't? She makes her mark with reliable "different" techniques in dialogue and direction, but doesn't try to throw it in our face. She's serviceable as producer, director, and actress. Of course, you're crazy if you try to deny the woman her musical talent. All the songs in Yentl SOUND the same, but they are not written the same. All the songs fit well within the framework, and tell us what Yentl is feeling at the time. Exactly what they were meant to. Perhaps the film shouldn't have ended in a song.
Not that affirmative action has any place in Hollywood, but Babs has really gotten the shaft over the years. With Penny Marshall, she's arguably the most accomplished female director in Hollywood HISTORY and has nothing to show for it. I'm not saying that everything she's ever done is even worthy of attention, but surely this was. I have a feeling that if Yentl had been directed by a man, it would have had a picture and director nomination, especially in a year where The GOD AWFUL Big Chill was so recognized.
Yentl is a film that tells a story of a turn of the century Jewish girl who wants to study like the boys do. It's a somewhat interesting story, but the real meat of the story is what happens as a result of Yentl's decisions and the performances of Pitakin and Amy Irving.
Johnny Eager (1941)
Robert who??? (spoilers included)
Having only been familiar with Robert Taylor's body of forgettable work from the thirties (The Broadway Melodies, Camille, etc), seeing him in the title role of Johnny Eager was stunning. Tom Hanks's 180 degree turn from silly comedies to Philadelphia might be a modern day equivalent. Taylor steps into a role that would seem tailor made for Bogart, Cagney or Robinson, and does an arguably better job than any of them could have. Yes, Lana Turner is present, and yes, Van Heflin won a supporting Oscar, but Taylor owns this film.
Not to say that Turner, Heflin and a few others aren't outstanding, as well. Forget about Turner's sex appeal, which is overrated anyway. She's was a poor woman's Veronica Lake. Her performance here is heartfelt without going over the top, and surprisingly deep for what is a relatively small role. Heflin deservingly won his Oscar, undoubtedly clinching it with the remarkable discharge of fluid from his eyes. That's something you don't see too often, even today. The character of Courteney (Robert Sterling) is expected to provide a few groans in a film like this, but was played very well. A good girl who falls for a bad man always has to have a good man waiting in the wings to "bring her back" when the bad guy drops her. Edward Arnold and the rest of the law were terrific, as well.
I don't really understand why others refer to Johnny Eager as a film noir. It may have an element or two of noir to a degree, but it's really just a gangster film. A late entry, perhaps, to a genre that was on it's way out, but not noir. Neither the characters nor their actions are dark enough. Hell, all the characters in this film are likeable. How can it be noir? Most gangster pictures, including the good ones and the REALLY good ones, usually relied on a pretty elementary plot involving deceit and revenge, with a pretty girl thrown in. The good and really good ones had great and memorable performances (Cagney in White Heat, Robinson in Key Largo, Bogart in Bullets or Ballots, eg), which made them great. Eager has the great performances as well a script that transcends just about every other gangster film I've ever seen. The script has as much characterization for a number of characters as the great dramas. The dialogue, while somewhat dated, is quick, sharp and often funny. Heflin, in particular, was never at a loss for something thoughtful to say. And the plot is unusually complex, with a number of twists, turns and characters.
Of course, you knew that, this being the 40's, that Taylor was not going to live happily ever after, no matter how much you liked him. Of course he's not going to. A criminal in that day and age of motion pictures almost NEVER gets away. So how was he going to go out? That was my question as the end drew near. Was this going to be just another gangster going out in a hail of bullets, with one last thing to say with his last gasp of air? I had a feeling that the writers weren't going to let me down, since they had done such an incredible job so far. It just goes to show that a characteristic of a great movie is that no detail is unimportant. No piece of information or character that seems insignificant early on will ultimately prove to be so. The brief mention of the beat cop early in the film, followed by a tearful plea from his wife in the middle and finally that same beat cop ultimately gunning Johnny down serve as a beautiful ribbon to tie around a perfectly wrapped gift.
Johnny Eager is one of the best films of the 40s, as well as one of the all time greats.
One Night at McCool's (2001)
Worth checking out
I wasn't expecting much from this film, and ended up really enjoying it. Since it's not a very "deep" film (it isn't trying to be), I don't really have anything deep to say, other than some odd thoughts:
It's a little too zany to be a black comedy, but it's certainly on the dark side. Matt Dillon is at his best playing a likable shady character in an offbeat film like this. I've never cared for Paul Reiser, but he's hilarious in this film, as is Michael Douglas, a hitman with nothing but sex on his mind. I won't say I disliked the ending, but the Tarantinoesque nature of it is somewhat unsettling. Andrew Dice Clay will never learn that he is not funny. Even, as the a-hole that he is, playing an a-hole, he's not funny. The Falling Down reference was Michael Douglas's doing, I'm sure, and may have been an amusing homage in another film, but it's not appropriate for this one. Lots of simple sight gags that were funny, nonetheless, in this film.
Again, not much to say about this film, but the reviews seem predominantly negative, and I felt compelled to add a positive one. It's a good mindless movie, undeserving of the critical and public bashing it's received.
Tumbleweeds (1999)
Groanfest
There are spoilers in this review, so don't read it if you haven't seen it.
As with almost every film ever made involving a road trip across the country, The Tumbleweeds choose to drive along empty two lane backroads instead of our wonderful interstate system. These groan inducing scenes at the beginning set the tone for the whole film.
Janet McTeer and Kimberly Brown are The Tumbleweeds, a snappy white trash mother daughter duo who have apparently spent their lives running from whatever wife-beater wearing, Coors Light drinking scuzzball Mom has been shacking up with. This time, however, we know things are going to turn out differently, because The Tumbleweeds are not going from West Virginia to Georgia, or Kentucky to Mississippi, but instead, are headed to California. As Ebert pointed out, California is always the destination of choice in films where troubled Americans head to solve all their problems. Why going to California didn't occur to Mom after the ending of any one of her previous four marriages is an unexplained mystery of the film.
Of course, Mom and Daughter have a great, loving relationship throughout their travels. Their loving relationship, though, has been permeated by the "liberal grossisms" perpetuated by Hollywood over the last decade. You know, the kind of stuff you never would have seen in a film like this ten years ago. Mom and Daughter passing gas in a roadside restaurant, and laughing and giggling about it afterwards. And when the car "is out of water" (Diagnosis: Daughter), Mom comments "I should have saved my piss." Mix those new cliches with old tired ones, like Daughter wanting her "ta-tas" to grow bigger faster and Mom teaching Daughter the proper way to kiss, and you've already ran the gamut.
But, wait! The groaning has just begun! While mulling over the fact that the car "is out of water", the Marlboro Man (a truck driver played by the director, Gavin O'Connor) comes to the rescue. He, of course, fixes it, and the gals are on their way. I don't know exactly where the breakdown occurs, but it is in the middle of the desert, far from San Diego, the Tumbleweeds' destination. As improbable as it may sound, Mom runs into the Marlboro Man again at a San Diego dive bar a few weeks later. He, of course, becomes the man du jour, and along with Mom's new stereotypical job as a clerk in a small business office (complete with small, sexist jerk boss), provides new opportunities for you to practice your groaning.
Meanwhile, Daughter hits the ground running. She starts at a new school the day after they get there (?????!!!!), has no problem fitting in right away, meets a new best friend, a new boyfriend, gets to play Romeo in Romeo and Juliet, and forms a special bond with a "nice guy" who I'm sure she'd rather see her mom with than Mr. Marlboro.
Gavin O'Connor, despite the fact that he wrote and directed a bad movie, is actually the best part of the film, as an actor. The fact that he's supposed to be playing Mom's scuzzball du jour is all the more perplexing to the film, because he really doesn't seem like that bad of a guy. He's generally nice to the Tumbleweeds, and throughout the film, only loses his cool a little bit, never to the point of being mean, and every time after he's been agitated by Mom or Daughter. Even the "final straw", Daughter refusing to put her Romeo and Juliet script away while the trio are having a celebratory dinner for his new job, and Him making a scene in the restaurant is really not that bad. Throughout the film, I was almost thinking that the script called for Mom and Daughter to do and say everything they can to piss the poor guy off until he couldn't take it anymore, then they'd leave him too. O'Connor's Marlboro Man does a good job of keeping his cool throughout, despite the Tumbleweeds best efforts to set him off. The confusing part of all this is that they either should have made the Man a real jerk throughout, or had some sort of reconciliation in the end. The middle road doesn't make sense.
Other scenes in the film seem to have been put in just to stretch the length. Either that, or it seems like scenes or sequences that should be there are not. The "nice guy" almost seems to be in a different film than Mom. Mom quitting her job just seemed like one more opportunity for McTeer to act like an immature ass. After one prior scene showing Mom working with flowers and visiting a nursery, there's a scene where she goes and begs the proprietor for a job, and gets it. Then, it is forgotten for the remainder of the film. In one scene, Daughter tries out for Juliet in the play. In the next, she refers to her "ex-best friend", who was also trying out for the play. A few scenes later, they are best friends again, like nothing ever happened. The film has serious continuity problems.
I could get really nitpicky and belittle things like the cost of living in San Diego. Mom and Daughter come to California with little or no money, and by the end, on a job that probably pays Mom about 11 dollars an hour, have a year lease on a San Diego house that in reality, probably costs at least 1000 a month. Rent and housing bills would take up her entire check. It's absurd, but I won't dwell on it, or the fact that a girl with a horrible Southern accent would get to play Romeo in a school play.
This film came out around the same time the very similar Anywhere But Here did, so comparisons are inevitable. Anywhere was not very good, either, but Natalie Portman almost singlehandedly elevated it to a tolerable level. There is no such magic here. You may think I'm just cynical and don't have a heart, but that's not the case. This is just a bad movie. About six months after these two films came out, another film with a similar feel came out that did an infinitely better job of rising above many of the same cliches and stereotypes that I've pointed out above. That film was Erin Brockovich. Go watch that one again.
"D"
Ransom! (1956)
Soooooooooo close...
A relatively forgotten film, both now and apparently in 1956, the year of it's release. The Academy continues to receive black mark after black mark for recognizing crap like The King And I and not powerful films like Ransom. For noticing embarrasing performances by Yul Brenner and Deborah Kerr and not the performances of Glenn Ford and Donna Reed.
The early to mid fifties saw the films of Hollywood attempting to become more and more realistic, with films like Ransom, The Blackboard Jungle and The Desperate Hours. These stories were grittier than they would have been if they had been made 5-10 years earlier, as are the performances. Glenn Ford and Donna Reed have the chance to play everyday American parents (albeit rich) who have their son kidnapped, and the results are not pretty or glamorized. Ford does not play the sappy or insane father who will do (sterotypically) anything to get his son back. As important as it is to get his son back, it's just as important to take a stand against the kidnappers. Reed is not the beautiful rock of stability you might expect during the goings-on. She becomes manic, and LOOKS like the train wreck that she would be in real life.
Juano Hernandez and Leslie Nielsen are supporting players who provide the same depth and unexpected realism that Reed and Ford do. Early on, I liked neither character, and expected these two to give standard cardboard butler and reporter performances, but they both show real heart.
Ransom is a great film. The Ransom that was made with Mel Gibson really isn't even the same story, so it's pointless to compare them. It is a performance driven film, one that would have faltered in the hands of actors not willing to play on the same level as the screenplay. Great entertainment, and one of the 50s best.
SPOILERS AHEAD
Ransom could easily have made my greatest films of all time list, were it not for the ending. I found myself praying that the boy would not come back. That the film would just end with Ford walking back into his den, or him standing over the unfinished fort. That would have been much more synonomous with the rest of the realistic story and would have made a much more powerful statement. But then, almost as an afterthought, the kid is just there again and a tearful reunion ensues with his parents. While I don't think it's a bad ending (I got a little choked up), the other way would have been better. Bringing the kid back not only defies the symettry of the rest of the film, it opens a whole can of questions. Questions that we the audience had put aside earlier, like "What happened to the kid?", "Who are the kidnappers?", and "Why and How did they let him go?". I had realized earlier in the film that the film isn't about the kidapping of the boy as much as it is the reaction of his parents, particularly his father.
So it was almost a disappointment that the kid came back and made me think about those questions again. A slightly unsatisfied feeling is left with the viewer. While the end was good and finely acted, it wasn't the right ending for this particular film. Regardless, it's still a great film with brilliant performances by Reed, Hernandez, and one of the all time most underrated actors, Glenn Ford.
The Sum of All Fears (2002)
Surprisingly good (spoilers, blah blah blah)
Maybe it was because I wasn't expecting much, but I found myself pleasantly surprised by this film. As many others have already pointed out, the villains of the book are considerably "safer" in the movie, so for the purpose of my review, I'll ignore that.
Even without that change, this film is flawed. Most of it's glaring flaws have already been pointed out, like how the nurse survives what happens, a number of things that the governments do and don't do, and the silly ending. These are all obvious, and obviously added out of simplicity's sake, to make the film easy to understand for the naive among us, and for a happy ending. While I do believe these flaws are obvious and not necessarily necessary, I forgive them because there is too much that's good about Sum.
The cast, including Ben Affleck, was very good. I almost can't believe how much restraint Affleck showed in portraying Jack Ryan. There was really very little of the pompous and arrogant prick that Ben Affleck seems to play in every other film. A lot of the credit goes to the screenwriter(s) who kept intellegent words coming out of his mouth. Even the scenes where Affleck had to get "excited", like when he has to convince the Department of Defense to let him talk to the President, don't seem like the overpronounced auditioning for a part in the community theatre production of "Bus Stop" that he usually gives us.
James Cromwell, despite the villainous look I can't shake (LA Confidential), plays a terrific and emotional president. I loved the human traits exhibited by his swearing and ranting to and with the other members of his "inner circle". It's refreshing to see realistic outbursts of emotion rather than calm and detached reason that we usually see in these situations. Liev Schrieber (and many of the other supporting actors in this film) is really a throwback to the studio system days where great character actors were as important to great films as the leads were (think Casablanca). Given the right material here, Schrieber is fun as hell to watch and owns every scene he's in. Morgan Freeman, aside from his silly death scene, is solid in a role that should have been bigger.
Tom Clancy serves as author of the original material and as executive producer, so what I'm sure is a great deal of expertise is not lost from print to celluloid. Of course, I don't know the first thing about the inner INNER workings of the government (and neither do you). Clancy may not know too much more, but he at least seems to know considerably more than the average hack in Hollywood that writes subject matter similar to this. In other words, the inner workings seem much more realistic than the average film of this genre. A lot of the cliches are not present in Sum, and those that are are not lingered upon. The average Hollywood hack would have written a scene where Affleck is pounding the bottle after Freeman's death, asking himself "Why, Why!!??" The direction and cinematography shined throughout. They were creative, interesting, and original (at times) without OVERLY TRYING to be those things.
I do question the filmmakers' use of the montage for the "justice" of the perpetrators in the end. I wonder if they got Coppola's permission to rip that off, by the way? In the Godfather films, that montage of death for the enemies works because 1) they are relatively insignificant enemies in the first place (others will easily take their place) and 2) The Godfather films are not about action and plot nearly as they are about family and characters. In Sum, they've written a whole movie around the actions of these villains and the consequences of their actions. A more satisfying resolution is needed.
All in all, a very enjoyable film, I thought. I would have liked to see it a little bit longer, mainly to see more of the aftermath of the disaster because it was so well done. But in a way, I'm almost glad they kept it to a minimum because that would be the typical thing to show. Lots of crying, homes and businesses destroyed, CNN reports moving the story along. The kind of crap we saw in Deep Impact.
Again, flawed, but too much good to not give it a solid.......B+
John Q (2002)
Horrible
If you liked this movie, or God forbid, you actually consider it good, I question your sanity. John Q makes Pearl Harbor seem subtle in it's emotional manipulation.
Even though Denzel is one of my favorite actors, I took the critics word for it and avoided this film until curiosity (and my girlfriend --Hi Robbie!) got the best of me. Horrible. Contrived. Manipulative. Improbable. Impausible. Impossible. Ridiculous. Stupid. Silly. Overblown. And on and on. Any of these words and many more would aptly describe this production. What was Denzel thinking? Even he could not transcend this material.
I loved the sterotypical cast of hostages. Always a colorful lot, they are. Think Speed or The Negotiator. Ethan Suplee as the fat security guard and Shawn Hatosy as the wife beater will not be forgotten come award season. Then, there was the wacky black supporting character (Eddie Griffin). I loved the sterotypical child who is always infinitely more intellegent and mature than someone of that age really is. I loved the stereotypical wife who just cries and can't seem to think rationally. And then, there was the hardened veteran negotiator (Duvall) who thinks HE'S the one who has the approach to handling the criminal (he's a true friend). Then, there's the comical police chief (Ray Liotta) who has to make the negotiator's job twice as hard because he is unable to just let him do his job (taken straight from the Negotiator). And James Woods as the cardiologist acts like he hasn't performed an operation in twenty years. But at such a small hospital with such a limited staff, who does perform operations, I wonder? Oh yeah, it's Saturday. I forgot.
Then, at the film's core, is the utter ridiculousness of a kindly lone gunman being able to take over (and secure) an entire hospital wing. It's not going to happen.
SPOILERS
I liked how the film showed the woman's accident at the beginning. Showing the accident at the time it was needed or not even showing it and just bringing in the heart out of the blue would have been too obvious. However, the small bit of intelligence that went into that bit of script seemed out of place with the rest of the film.
Of course, John Q saves the day and the kid lives. What did you expect, reality? And, of course, the film makes the sterotypical attempt at the end (A Few Good Men) to not let the hero/criminal get off scott free. What was Robert Duvall, the negotiator, doing escorting Q to and from court, anyway? I doubt that's part of his job description.
There is a lot more to dissect and tear up about this film, but there's only so much time in the day. Check it out if you feel like groaning for two hours.
"D-"
Signs (2002)
Lame
M. Night Shyamalan has often been compared to a young Steven Spielberg. He has the same ability to craft and build up a story that Spielberg has always had. Where the comparison ends is that Shyamalan has not proven that he can finish the job.
All three of his films, this one, The Sixth Sense and Unbreakable, are superbly crafted. He's good at writing suspense, buildup, and quiet horror. Not many can argue that the payoff of the Sixth Sense was about as good as it gets. Unbreakable played along the same lines, but the payoff, while ingenious, practically ruined the film, in my opinion. The payoff in Signs also ruins the film, and even lacks the ingenuity of Unbreakable. It is dull, unimaginative and disappointing. Shyamalan's angle in Signs is not to show the invasion of the aliens (Independence Day), but to show one family's reaction to that invasion, Kind of like Night of the Living Dead. The difference is, the people in NOTLD are acting and reacting to what's happening around them. In Signs, the focus is more on a dead wife/mother, faith, and the eccentric behavior of two children. And it's not very interesting and makes for a lousy payoff.
So where did Signs go wrong? I don't know, or I'd be getting paid 12 million per movie like Shyamalan did for this. I don't have the imagination to devise a film/script like this, and Shyamalan doesn't either. This film didn't make me think. It didn't scare me. It wasn't profound in any way. And I think it was trying to be/do all those things. I can't say how this film should have ended. But the way it did end was the wrong way. After an enormous success right out of the gate, Shyamalan has failed twice in a row. And all of his films have been "pass or fail", in my opinion. Films that build up this much throughout have to deliver a knockout punch.
On the plus side, Signs was very well acted. Mel Gibson was solid, albeit unbelievable as a farming reverend. Joaquin Phoenix, normally an enormous ham, gave a solid and quiet performance as Gibson's younger brother. However, the real acting chops in this film go to the two kids. Rory Culkin, in my opinion, has confirmed himself as the best child actor currently working in Hollywood. I thought he was outstanding in You Can Count On Me, and his mature performance here shows that wasn't a fluke. Abigail Breslin plays Bess, the young daughter. Despite the fact that Shyamalan was trying to do something spooky with her character and failed, she still gives an outstanding mature performace. It's a shame she couldn't have done more.
The nice eye that Shyamalan has demonstrated in his previous films is not lost here, either. His Hitchcockian knack of filming creatively and not relying on static shots and angles plays well here as it did in Sense and Unbreakable. But Shyamalan needs to spend as much time, if not more, concocting dazzling endings to these films as he does building them up. Again, while I didn't care for the ending of Unbreakable, I at least give him credit for creativity. The ending of Signs is lame and unimaginative. Spielberg would have blown us away.
Very Bad Things (1998)
Misunderstood
Very Bad Things is a film about five guys who, more or less, kill two people and bury them in the desert. Bad things to do, to be sure. But that's not really what the movie is about, and those who criticize it aren't getting it.
What makes Very Bad Things a good movie is that it's not about the surface story, but about how five ordinary guys make a horrible choice and then have to live with it. As Christian Slater's character Boyd would say, once you get past the horror of what these guys have done, what are you left with? Paranoia, anger, regret and betrayal. And more horror. Jon Favreau is good, but more or less just serves as one of the guys that the main story goes through. It's the performances of Christian Slater, Jeremy Piven and especially Daniel Stern that really make this film. Even the critics who blasted (and therefore misunderstood) this film, like Roger Ebert, conceed that Slater's performance is worthy of praise. Piven and Stern play the brothers who are pretty much at opposite ends of the spectrum as far as their feelings about the incident. Obviously, Piven started the whole thing in motion and therefore doesn't want to be caught. Stern, who I've never seen in a dramatic role until this film, plays the straight edge who wants to call the police immediately and who is especially wracked by guilt afterwards.
Spoilers ahead. The scene where Stern's character gets gas and has to go into the station to buy Whizzers is the film's best scene. It is brilliantly written, directed, executed, and acted by Stern. The arguing that Stern and Piven perform throughout, especially the evening Stern dies is incredible and almost seems genuine. Then, after Piven's character kills Sterns', the array of guilt he displays is marvelously acted, as well. And, again, Slater's character is just about the most evil "normal guy" you'll ever see.
Again, Favreau is getting married (to Cameron Diaz), and that serves as the framework for the story. Diaz is used mainly for comic relief in what is otherwise a dismal and horrid story. Sure, the notion of a fanatic bride-to-be is somewhat cliched, but Diaz does a hell of a job with it. Maybe the film would have gone over a little better with a little more fanaticism from her.
There comes a point in this film where I feel it kind of nosedives, that being when Slater's character turns on Favreau for the insurance money. This action of Slater's character is not characteristic of the person the film had painted up to that point, of being cool, calm and collected, avoiding messing things up. Out of the blue, he tries to kill Favreau for some insurance money. I guess that the film could have continued to nosedive from that point, but surprisingly, does not. The rest continues on in the same spirit it had up to that point, which makes me think that a better way for Boyd to die could have been conceived.
Basically, in the end, everyone is punished. Especially the Diaz character as the film ends. A lifetime of punishment that would probably be worse than execution or a life sentence is presented for her. It's a great way to end this film by Peter Berg.
Very Bad Things is a black comedy, I guess, or is supposed to be. Like most black comedies (think Fargo), you're never actually laughing at what is happening. You're laughing at what certain characters, including bad ones, say at times. It's a light way to present a very dark, disturbing or twisted story. And it was done exactly as it should have been, in my opinion. Some say this film would have been better if it had been played straight. Why??? With such a plot, a film like this has to make you laugh sometimes and remind you constantly that it's just a movie and the filmmakers aren't taking it too seriously. To criticize people (Ebert) for finding this film funny is unfair. No one in their right mind is laughing at the killing. But the characters are pretty funny when they're not killing, kind of like the guys in Fargo.
Lighten up, people, and make SOME attempt to understand where these filmmakers were coming from. B+
Vanilla Sky (2001)
More good than bad
What a mess. Most of the "messy" films you'll see are messy because of editing. This one is messy because the plot is too thick. There are arguably four or five plot points in this film. However, as ugly as it gets sometimes, Vanilla Sky is interesting and somewhat perplexing (in a good way) and I generally liked it for the most part.
Yes, Cameron Crowe is out of his element here. Just like the Coen brothers have no business doing a romantic comedy, Crowe doesn't need to be sticking his head in stories like this. Mainly because his style brings nothing to the table in this kind of film. His trademark character monologues and epiphanies simply convolute the film more than it already is and the "dancing" he does around the central part of the story is alright in simple minded films like Singles and Almost Famous, but we don't need that here.
I think you'd really have to go out of your way to spoil this film, but I'll just stick to the basics anyway. The first half hour or so of the film is bad. The Tom Cruise character is an arrogant prick, as he is in every other one of his films, but he's an unlikeable arrogant prick in this one. And the Cameron Diaz character is equally unlikeable. Someone must have told Penelope Cruz that if she spoke English but didn't lose any of her Spanish accent, she'd sound cute and adorable and everyone would love her. Doesn't work on me. She's just as annoying as Cruise and Diaz.
So what did I like about this film you ask? Basically, when the plot starts to jump around, the film gets interesting. I didn't like all of the plot turns and a couple of them don't make any sense, even after finishing the film, but the premise is fascinating once it gets going. And I did like the way in which the story was presented, in the meeting between Cruise and Kurt Russell. Moderate spoiler ahead...
Some people might not like to constantly be second guessing what they're seeing onscreen, but I generally do. Watching this film, you never know if you're seeing the past, present or future, or if what you're seeing is real or a dream. Or a hallucination.
There's plenty to criticize and plenty to be annoyed with in Vanilla Sky. But the flip side is a little more plentiful, in my opinion. "B-"
The Last Temptation of Christ (1988)
A flawed masterpiece
Let me first say that as with any great film adapted from a book, the original author deserves as much credit as the filmmaker. In this case, Nikos Kazantzakis. How much of what appears on screen is actually due to Martin Scorcese I cannot say, since I haven't read the book. Whomever is responsible presented a fascinating interpretation of the life of Jesus.
What can I say about the critics of this film that hasn't already been said? Nothing, really, except "who cares" what a bunch of religious zealots and fanatics think. All I can say is, thank God I live in the United States and not some country where ignorant and narrow minded religious groups dominate national policy so much that they can get a film banned by a government that allows itself to be so influenced by such groups.
Willem Dafoe gives an outstanding and heartfelt performance as Christ. Why he did not receive an Oscar nomination is beyond me, especially in a year where Tom Hanks got nominated for Big. In particular, his breakdown in the scene where he begs God for an alternative to crucifiction had me in tears.
I speak as a person who was brought up Catholic, but does not consider religion an important part of my life. At this point in my life, I'm not sure what to make of, for lack of a better word, "The Bible". From Genesis to Revelations, I can't say that I completely believe any of it. However, assuming Christ did exist, even the Bible more or less comes out and says that "Jesus is mortal". He was a human being. He grew up like any other child. He had a trade as a young adult. In other words, he was not God. At least not yet. So why not take that premise to the next level, which is what Last Temptation does. It more or less puts *us* in the place of Jesus. An ordinary human being, not without sin, who is all of the sudden called upon by God to save the human race by being crucified. Who among us wouldn't struggle with such a calling? Since Jesus was a man, why should he be any different? It truly is a fascinating premise, and it is brilliantly explored by Scorcese and Dafoe.
Not knowing anything about what happens in this film before I saw it, I was a bit surprised by the eventual last temptation. In an almost-It's A Wonderful Life style vision, Jesus gets to see what his life would be like as a mortal man. What surprises me is the length to which the temptation goes, to Jesus's deathbed. I guess I think the ideal Jesus, even in an interpretation like this, would not entertain the temptation so long. He doesn't go running back to God until he finds out the truth, after a lifetime of living as a mortal. I don't necessarily think this is a fault of the story/film, but I think it would have been better if Jesus had resisted temptation after a taste of it. Maybe after Mary Magdeline cleanses his wounds. Incidentally, I thought the little girl who played the "guardian angel" was outstanding. An incredibly mature performance for a then 13 year old.
I think this film goes awry in a couple of places. The first is the nudity. No, there's not THAT much in it, but none of it was necessary. Every scene that contains it could have been shot exactly the same way without exposing so much flesh. In a story like this, there's just no reason for it. The more significant criticism I have of this film is the somewhat haphazard way that it plows through the significant events of Jesus's latter life. Several of the events, such as the changing of water to wine, are just sort of thrown in without making any statements. The event happens, then the scene ends. Yes, the film is 2:40, but should have been longer to show the reaction of Jesus. The reaction of the people, the apostles. What was going through Jesus's head during and after. The alternative would have been to cut these stories that don't have much depth to them out of the film. Perhaps on a relatively small budget, Scorcese didn't have the funds to totally do the film the way he wanted it to, or the way it should have been done. Unfortunately, that's no excuse, and it does detract from the film.
Last Temptation, even without it's central theme, is informative and educational, and I think just about anyone would find it interesting and accessible. Almost as interesting as the "human" Jesus is the interpretation of the good side of Judas, played by Harvey Keitel. A great film all around, including the score by Peter Gabriel. Call me crazy, but I think one of Gabriel's compositions for this film is awfully similar to the opening of the Dave Matthews song "Warehouse". Dave, care to comment?