paul_bender Reviews

The Winslow Boy (1999)

A disappointment

[3/10 · 1 May 2000]

I generally like the dialogue in David Mamet's films very much, and "The Winslow Boy" is no disappointment in that respect. The dialogue is quick, intelligent, and skillfully layered. The lighting also is a surprise--quite expressive and textured for a "little" historical film.

Even so, the emotions in this film are so repressed that there is very little dynamic at all to the drama. While the performances are all good, I found the boy's character to be less compelling than the rest of the cast; this problem is compounded by the fact that is is hardly on the screen at all during the second half of the film, which gives us even less opportunity to connect with him.

But the biggest (dramatically speaking) problem I had with the film is that the major plot point--the courtroom scenes and the ultimate legal decision--is played totally off screen! It seemed as though, rather than dramatizing the story of "The Winslow Boy", Mamet decided at some point to instead angle for the romantic interest between the lawyer and the Winslow sister, as well as her struggle for women's suffrage. Admittedly, these were interesting developments, but they both proved to be dead ends that only served to dilute the overall effect.

Disappointing!

The Matrix (1999)

Amusement Park Ride

[4/10 · 1 March 2000]

Like a roller coaster, "The Matrix" is a visceral thrill ride. Also like a roller coaster, once the ride is over, you don't take anything home with you and there isn't much of substance that needs to be said.

I really enjoyed this ride. I think it is among the best of its genre. But calling it "one of the greatest...etc, etc"--that's a leap I'm not willing to make. The acting styles and dialogue are campy, and I the plot certainly can not be supported by any rational argument; rather it is something that, like religion, requires a leap of faith to buy into. Examples:

1. Everyone, including the "agents" evidently, can be killed by a single bullet. If this is not true, then why (other than the visceral thrill of it) all the gymnastics to avoid them? If it is true, then it is absurd to think that their bodies could withstand even a fraction of the pummeling they receive at each other's hands. Everyone gets punched, kicked, hurled, and driven into (occasionally through) plaster walls, only to emerge unscathed but ready to dodge that next damn bullet. 2. <<SPOILER FOLLOWS!>> The energy delivered by the captive human embryos to support The Matrix must, of course, be less than the energy required to support them, making their use illogical. (Reference: The Law of the Conservation of Energy.) 3. The function of The Kiss at the end is really getting into the shaky ground of Dramatic License. I know that the film is chock full of Jesus symbolism, so it is required that <<SPOILER FOLLOWS!>> Neo dies and then comes back to life. But, as in the case of Jesus, it does require a major leap of faith to embrace the idea--and drama is not religion. Personally, I get the impression that the writers just wrote themselves into a dramatic wall, and required an unmotivated miracle--literally--to get out of it.

In the context of the action/thriller film genre, I think the examples I've quoted above are really trivial. But when an attempt is made to glorify The Matrix as a film masterpiece, that changes the yardstick entirely.

Really, I liked The Matrix quite a lot. As an action/thriller film, I think it is about as good as they get. But it is an amusement park ride and little more. When the ride is over, you either get off, or get back on for another go; but you certainly don't claim to have had a spiritual experience in the process.

The Talented Mr. Ripley (1999)

Muddled, but compelling nonetheless

[4/10 · 16 February 2000]

Like Anthony Minghella's previous film ("The English Patient") the visual styling of "The Talented Mr. Ripley" is rich and textured. Mingehella knows how to light a scene and where to put the camera. Likewise, the performances from the entire cast are fine, including the amoral, sociopathic, and rather creepy Mr. Ripley (Matt Damon). The performance by Philip Seymour Hoffman (Freddy) is confident, range-stretching for him, and--I think--the finest in the film. (As a slightly less relevant aside, I must say that I found the Italian scenery magnificent to watch, especially the streets of Rome, the Spanish Steps, and the Bernini fountains.)

However, like "The English Patient", the plot is so dense (and, I would argue, muddled) that characters and their motivations become unclear as one tries to keep log of details. (e.g. Where did Peter come from, anyway? He just shows up in the middle of the film, with insufficient introduction, rather intimately palling around with Marge at the opera.) Now some of this I'm sure is intentional in order to enhance the meting out of this complex tale of mystery; however, I think that Minghella's delivery of drama often mistakes confusion and unclarity for suspense.

I suppose that I should not complain too loudly since "Ripley" with its gorged plot is definitely preferable to the more common (and annoying) problem--namely, too little plot. If you can forget about plausibility I think you will find, all in all, that the ride is intriguing and generally compelling.

Michael (1996)

Feel-good spirituality

[2/10 · 14 February 2000]

"Michael" is a pleasant film about a lazy, chain smoking, sugar engorged, womanizing angel who loves bar-room brawls. The characterization of an angel with so many negative attributes (indeed, vices) is unique. Unfortunately, that is the end of the originality in "Michael"; the rest is inane and achingly predictable.

Michael (charmingly played by John Travolta) is purportedly sent on a mission to redirect the lives of two supermarket tabloid reporters. As he has no moral compass of his own, the character of his planned redirection can only be imagined. In between childlike (some might say childish) spasms of singing to himself and dancing solo (which is meant, I think, in some round-about, inoffensive way, to show that what the world really needs is more free spirited people like Michael) he goes on a road trip to visit such magnificently tacky landmarks as "the world's biggest ball of twine" and "the world's largest non-stick frying pan". Oddly enough, the tabloid people--who make their living peddling commodities of like character--express no interest in any of this stuff! They're too busy trying to work out their relationship problems. Huh? Isn't that what the angel is supposed to be helping them with? At some point, it becomes clear that the tabloid reporters have greater spiritual depth than the angel whose job it is to deliver them. Sure, from time to time Michael does offer up a few brief, inoffensive, obligatory, truisms. But this movie has no real philosophy or spirituality, other than feel-good. I don't know what the point of this angel business is, but it certainly has nothing to do with God. In fact, the G-man is never once mentioned. To deal with Him would no doubt be offensive to some. God, or even sincere Spirituality, is more demanding and less approachable (definitely less amusing!) than a seedy, sociopathic angel.

If you have any depth to your Sprituality at all, you will likely find the inoffensive "Michael" to be indeed offensive in its feel-good distillation of real spiritual issues.

Rushmore (1998)

Mainstream film disguised as an offbeat one

[2/10 · 2 February 2000]

Films that manage to create character identification for unsympathetic characters are rare and, I find, frequently profound. Sadly, for me, "Rushmore" is not such a film. Max, the main character, is not only unsympathetic, but is almost thoroughly unlikable. He is offensive to most people he meets, has no goals that might justify his nastiness, has virtually no interests, and really has no admirable qualities. And the one thing he is allegedly good at (writing plays) occurs totally offscreen. We never see him working on plays, agonizing over them, figuring out his plots and characters; in fact, his writing seems to have little affect on his life at all until he appears with a completed script. (In my mind, the screenwriters of "Rushmore" used Max's writing, as well as his relationship to his dead mother, as a sort of half-baked character attribute that they never put sufficient effort into fleshing out.) Worst of all, Max never changes (for better, or for worse.) He doesn't really learn anything or move anywhere, and he doesn't appreciably affect anyone's life.

While I enjoyed Bill Murray's performance, I was continually distracted by the implausibility of a 45 year old man forming an intimate friendship with a high school student. Such a relationship is certainly not impossible. However, the film offers no credible reasons for its formation. Moreover, in the days in which we live, it is inconceivable to me that a middle aged man with no adult friends can hang with a teen ager without raising some very real questions (not to mention a few eyebrows!) Of course these are not issues that a bold film would ignore, but Rushmore does just thatc, and in my mind that is just plain laziness (or incompetence) on the part of the filmmakers.

For me, Rushmore is about impotent, directionless, rebellion. Sure it's charismatic and chock full of energy, even touching for a while. But for those of us beyond puberty, the "angry young man" character gets boring pretty quickly unless that energy goes somewhere, unless something original is developed from it; and, in Rushmore, this does not happen.