stvincal Reviews

Swept Away (2002)

A new low for Madonna

[28 April 2003]

Playing an arrogant, too-rich, self-centered, childish, ego-driven, aging snot of an obnoxious diva, Madonna hits a new low giving an unconvincing performance as herself.

As if having her irritating real-life exploits continuously thrown in our face by tabloid headlines and television bytes isn't enough, now the producers of this movie want us to pay admission to watch Madonna behave like Madonna. This is obviously nothing more than a vehicle for its producers to try to cash in on Guy Ritchie's one-hit wonder status, with Madonna thrown in ostensibly for marquee value. Or perhaps because she wouldn't allow anyone else to be cast in the part.

Both Madonna and Mr. Madonna have talked at length in the press about how painful and agonizing it was to work together all day on a film set, then go home and be husband and wife. Neither, however, gave any consideration to the pain and agony soon to be inflicted upon audiences whose only mistake was paying admission to see this turkey. WARNING: Stay AWAY from "Swept Away". Even if you're a Madonna fan, even if you're a fan of Guy Ritchie's previous films, preserve your admiration by NOT seeing this movie. If you must, watch "Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels" again, or buy "Ray of Light", find a happy place, and pretend that this film never happened. With any luck, a project this bad won't surface again. It's not a curio, it's not a cult film, it's not even a "trainwreck" to be watched for unintentional laughs. It's not funny. Everything you heard and suspect is true; this is an utterly terrible film from beginning to end, a two-hour waste of time, and the worst film of 2002.

A Beautiful Mind (2001)

HAS OSCAR LOST ITS "MIND"?!?

[1/10 · 2 March 2002]

****SPOILERS AHEAD****

I've heard it been said that this film is "not your typical Hollywood movie", in that Ron Howard stays away from overt sentimentality, swelling violins and other devices used to club audiences over the head and send them home in a euphoric, feel-good haze that doesn't dissipate until the last bought and paid-for Academy Award is handed out on Oscar night.

Yes, Ron Howard stays away from overt sentimentality. And he stays away from everything else, too. Including moments that might reveal character, facts that would tell an honest, cohesive story and ANYTHING that would help make a captive audience believe in and care about what they're watching. Instead, we're led along through a series of hokey scenes showing John Nash at school, clearly AN OUTSIDER (watch how he upends a chess board! thrill as he tosses furniture out of a window! cheer while he launches a textbook into a garbage can and teaches the class HIS way!). Every time a moment comes along that might actually reveal character...SMASH!...cut to "two years later". Then Nash meets a girl in his class whose only apparent attribute is that she has the balls to tell a bunch of construction workers to shut up. Soon they're pointing at stars, then they're on a picnic then...BANG!...suddenly they're married! The entire flick has this rapid, TV movie-like pacing. Nothing is ever earned. All of the scenes are thrown at us in neat, easy-to-digest, simple-for-a-big-dumb-audience-to-understand fashion. Yet despite this rapid (vapid) pacing, the movie drags and sags.

As for a lack of swelling violins, uber-composer James Horner - raising "Titanic" - reprises the syrupy flutes from that film, to indicate to the audience of this film that THIS IS AN EMOTIONAL MOMENT. And a good thing, too, because the routine acting and the banal dialogue sure doesn't.

Russell Crowe's acting is uneven at best. In one scene he comes off as a shy, innocent dullard, then he's an arrogant prick, then back again. I understand he's supposed to be schizophrenic but there's a certain measuredness - a balanced realness - that's required to make any performance credible - even a schizophrenic. This is not displayed at all, and the result is that he lost my believability for the character and my sympathy for his situation. Top that off with an Aussie accent one minute, then some fake-o West Virginia country boy twang the next, then back again....there's a hundred other actors that, despite the handicap of Ron Howard's direction, could have brought this role to life. Don't get me wrong. Russell Crowe is a great actor. From "Romper Stomper" to "The Insider" he has given some amazing performances, but he was really the wrong choice here.

Jennifer Connelly, so great in "Requiem for a Dream", gives a throwaway performance here. In her defense, the role written for her is a WASTE. In scene after stilted scene, she plays the dutiful, suffering wife. Fine, she stuck with her husband throughout his "ordeal" (such as it was....this movie's idea of the torment of an unhinged mind boils down to a roomful of magazine clippings and yarn! scary!), but WHY!? Why not invite the audience into her mind as well, show us her trials, her demons, her reasons for hanging on? Certainly someone living with a schizophrenic 24 hours a day must have some story of her own to tell? Where is the slow, measured wearing-down of HER sanity? Instead we get a marginal acting job of a woman staring out a window with tears running down her face. POOF! Suddenly they have a child! WHY!? Was this planned? What are the ramifications now? How does Nash perceive the child? When the baby almost drowns (a scene that could have been and should have been extremely harrowing and emotionally wrenching) I DIDN'T EVEN CARE!!

Finally, it's unclear what this film is even ABOUT. Schizophrenia? "Sybil" - a TV movie - was far more compelling, believable and informative. A mathematician? What did he accomplish? Aside from the windowpane scrawlings at the beginning of the movie, I never saw him contribute anything mathematical. A teacher? There is about five minutes of film showing him teaching, but fails to detail his accomplishments, his inspiration to his students, his relationships with his peers and other faculty - NOTHING. A Nobel Prize winner? For what? Admittedly, I fell asleep during the last five or ten minutes of the film, just prior to him making his big acceptance speech. Perhaps I missed some bit of information, but what did he win a Nobel Prize for, being a psychotic jerk? The movie neither shows nor tells anything that might support otherwise.

In short, this movie is by-the-numbers filmmaking, and continues to add to the less-than-lackluster directing talents of Ron Howard. From what I understand, John Nash lived quite a colorful life that included womanizing, a nasty divorce, homosexual affairs, violent outbursts and strokes of mathematical genius that apparently changed our economic system. Was any of this portrayed in this piteous, watered-down film? NO!!! Somewhere here there is a good, compelling story that should have been told by a better director - and a better writer (it's not solely Howard's fault). Instead we get this manipulative, clap-trap crowd pleaser, showered with Oscar nominations and (rather appropriately) destined to take its place alongside "The English Patient". It's unfortunate that John Nash's life was reduced to this treacle. This "Beautiful Mind" was a terrible thing for Ron Howard - and Akiva Goldsman - to waste.

Rover Dangerfield (1991)

A very funny, very well-done animated film!

[10/10 · 8 December 2001]

This movie did not get the recognition it deserved. I remember it played in the theatres for 2 or 3 weeks then went to video. That's a shame because it is actually really good. It's the story of Rover, a boozing, gambling Bassett hound (voiced by Rodney Dangerfield, of course) who has Las Vegas in the palm of his hand, er, paw. Cavorting with showgirl dogs by night and sleeping off hangovers by day makes him one contented pooch. However, trouble comes one night when a thug believes Rover is a witness to a crime. Rover is thrown into a bag and tossed over Hoover Dam to drown. But our hero escapes, floats down river and winds up on a farm!

This is where the humor and charm of the movie lies, and Rodney Dangerfield's classic schtick works perfectly as Rover tries in vain to assimilate himself into the dull farm life. Of course valuable life lessons will be learned amidst the humor.

This was a very good attempt at trying to make an animated film suited for adults, instead of the usual kiddie stuff that is released. That's not to say that kids couldn't enjoy this film too, but it's aimed at adults, with Rodney Dangerfield's brand of humor in some cases going over the heads of children. Unfortunately, the film didn't do well, and few attempts have been made since to target adults with animation. Rent this movie if you want to see an animated film that's a bit different from everything else out there, and especially if you are a Rodney Dangerfield fan. The jokes are funny, the animation topnotch and even the musical numbers are done well. This should have been a bigger hit than it was.

The Magic Pearl (1997)

A beautifully-done animated adventure set in ancient China.

[8/10 · 6 December 2001]

This animated, 90-minute adventure is a unique, beautifully-rendered adaptation of the ancient Chinese ghost stories that have been handed down from generation to generation. The story starts out in modern-day California, where two children of Chinese heritage are left in the care of their Grandmother while their parents are away on a trip. But their Grandmother is no ordinary Grandmother. She is more like a wise witch doctor, full of stories, and able to conjure up spells and magic potions. Initially the children are afraid of her, but gradually she wins their trust. By mistake, the three of them are transported to ancient China, where they enter a world fraught with wizards, witches, ghosts and an assortment of other dangers. This is where the adventure begins, as they try to safely make their way back to the modern world. But they won't leave China without learning some important life lessons, as well as an appreciation for their culture. Set amongst ancient temples, villages and lakes, with a backdrop of wide plains and towering, mist-covered mountains, "The Magic Pearl" takes the viewer on an animated travelogue of China. The story is compelling and the voice characterizations - featuring an all-Asian cast which includes France Nguyen and George Takei as a talking frog named Ha Ping - are all superb. The only complaint is at times the animation seems a bit stiff and limited. But the beautiful watercolor backgrounds (which won background artist Barbara Schade an Emmy Award) are reason enough to rent this exciting adventure story. At times it may be a bit scary for younger viewers, but anyone over the age of 5 or 6 will be fascinated. It originally aired on ABC but is now available on video. If you enjoy animation, and especially if you want to watch a fantasy/adventure that is different from most animated shows, rent "The Magic Pearl".

The Story of Santa Claus (1996 TV Movie)

Better-than-average Christmas special

[9/10 · 6 October 2001]

This is a few steps above your average holiday special, and CBS has been running it seasonally for several years. The voices (Ed Asner, Betty White and Tim Curry) are all terrific, and special note should be paid to Toby Bluth's wonderful direction. Its charm recalls the classic holiday specials ("Rudolph the Red-nosed Reindeer", "Frosty the Snowman", etc.), and the story is entertaining for adults and children alike. Songs are catchy and well-done without being maudlin, and the Busby Berkely-like musical numbers are fun to see. Watch it this year and prepare to shed a tear or two.