Change Your Image
standstraight80
Reviews
Valley of Angels (2008)
George Katt gives a fierce and courageous performance.
My comments here are written in light of having watching the film for a second time. While I liked 'Valley of Angels' a lot the first time around, I appreciated it even more the second time. There are some slight negative points - the language content is at times overbearing and harsh and a few technical bumps - but there is not anything significant that I would flaw the film on.
The acting is definitely the film's strongest point. George Katt gives and intense and realistic performance. It is everything that he does throughout, in particular the facial expressions that he captures on his face. Into the film his expressions at times are unflinching and very realistic. He portrays innocence and hurt so easily. He's very natural, scratches his face, moves graciously, and you can see him connecting with his character throughout the story. Brando represents the very definition of method acting and George Katt is at that level in this film. Being able to reach inside yourself and pull something out that kicks everyone in the ass. They say sometimes beautiful people are born under a dark cloud. I think Katt was born under a rain of thunderbolts like Brando was. He is powerful and tragic at the same time.
When I first viewed the film, it was Katt's acting that stood out the most to me. His performance and character are riveting, providing a fierce performance while not letting his character turn into a stereotype. It is incredibly realistic acting, the way he interacts with with different characters and takes on different personalities in order to get through each specific situation, and the way he is torn between his new found love and what he does for a living.
It's a superb performance as a conflicted and guilt ridden torched soul.
It has an excellent score and often fits the actions very well.
One can praise a film for many different reasons, but it is not worth much unless one can explain what the film is really about. I would say that 'Valley of Angels' is a drama about struggling against the inner restrictions of 'self', and of what it takes to crawl out of a dark hole one has made for himself. However, I also see it as an exciting story about a young man confronting himself and the harshness of a shallow city that is effectively and realistically run by drugs. Perhaps it is about love and how mistakes are made by certain paths a young man can easily take in life. I think different viewers will take something different out of it. And it is perhaps that, more than the artistic and cinematic qualities of the film, which makes it a great piece of independent cinema. This is a film for more intelligent and thoughtful audiences. If anything, it's worthwhile to watch George Katt's performance in the film.
Sideways (2004)
A film that lingers like fine wine.
Like the wine ubiquitously present throughout, allows its own story to breathe and take its lovely, wistful taste as we follow the two main characters played by Paul Giamatti and Thomas Haden Church in their "weekend of debauchery." One couldn't imagine two more mismatched people -- Giamatti plays an intellectual introvert while Haden Church plays an irresponsible goon still trapped in high school -- but one senses that these have been friends for a long time, even if their friendship is held on a tenuous string. But friends they are, and it's described in this trip that begins in Southern California as they drive up the coast and enter wine country, where they meet two women, Virginia Madsen and Sandra Oh, equally different, both a complement to the men and with whom the men pair up with. The fact that the Madsen/Giamatti pairing is tentative while the Oh/Haden Church pairing is essential to the back story of wine: where the latter display their affair "all over the place, commonly" like Cabernet, the former is defined closer to Pinot, and in one heartbreaking scene, both Giamatti and Madsen define their characters through the evolution of wine throughout the years.
And it's this one scene that makes the movie. Madsen conveys so much more with so little and should have been more than an Oscar nominee: her short scene lingers far beyond her last appearance in the movie, and makes us want for more of her soulfulness. She is able to bring out the less seen, more fragile side of Giamatti's character and have him take the decision he takes at the end of the movie, and the fact that Payne does not take us into that scene is indicative of that power their tentative yet intense coupling has seared into our minds: this is romantic eroticism at its finest, lasting equally much longer than the more torrid affair Haden Church and Oh exhibit. There is no need to see that final scene, because as private as it is, we know that they will consummate their union beautifully and move on into the future since they are perfect for each other.
Beautiful, saturated colors and light that evokes films of the 70s, long takes, edgy humor mixed with touching introspection, SIDEWAYS is a visual treat that gets better with subsequent viewings
The Secret Lives of Dentists (2002)
Fine example of a different filmmaker.
2003 wasn't a particularly great year for film: although there were a few diamonds in the rough (see Kill Bill, The Station Agent, and Lost in Translation), for the most part, mainstream releases were nothing more than glorifications of the Hollywood blockbuster formula. So I suppose it comes as no surprise that Alan Rudolph's terrific film, The Secret Lives of Dentists, practically slipped by unnoticed -- not only by audiences, but by critics and award ceremonies as well. What a shame. While it isn't a spectacular film per se, The Secret Lives of Dentists is a fine example of a film-maker who tried something different and -- for the most part -- succeeded. David (Campbell Scott) and Dana Hurst (Hope Davis) are married dentists trying to form a functional family with their three daughters, and David eventually cracks under the pressure and develops an alter-ego (incarnated by Denis Leary -- not the person I would pick to be MY Tyler Durden, but whatever). The movie is very subtle -- even for an independent picture -- but it works: as the Hursts' marriage gradually crumbles under scrutiny, director Rudolph doesn't hammer us over the head with clichés. David begins to suspect that Dana is having an affair, but unlike other family dramas -- which would boil down the situation to the point where it's just a husband trying to catch his wife in the act --, Rudolph deals with the issue in relation to the rest of David's life, rather than just the present: David can't bring himself to uncover the truth about Dana for fear that it would destroy their relationship (or what's left of it), and so every action he takes is essentially a procrastination of confrontation. While not wise on David's behalf, this is a very smart move for Rudolph. He builds up immense tension throughout the film and only releases enough to keep us from dying of anxiety; by the time it's all over, we feel as if the Hursts' story is still unfinished. Screenwriter Craig Lucas (who adapted the script from a novel by Jane Smiley) has created two characters that have a life beyond the restraints of the film's running time, and he has done it masterfully. His script is marvelously low-key, making us laugh at the most unlikely moments and moving us in unexpected ways. Campbell Scott is equally slight in his performance, creating a passive-aggressive character we can't help but sympathize with, but Hope Davis (who received an Independent Spirit Award nod for the film) is the true standout: she brings her grace and complexity to a role that we might have otherwise seen as an enemy to the protagonist. Leary plays himself, so whether or not he's good is purely dependent on the viewer, but the least you could say is that he picked a decent movie for once. Add a wonderfully bizarre soundtrack (featuring a unique rendition of the Velvet Underground's "I Found a Reason" by Cat Power) and Rudolph's quirky direction, and you have an unexpected winner of a film. As I said before, The Secret Lives of Dentists isn't a great movie, but it's something perhaps even better: noteworthy. Either way, the next time I go to get my teeth cleaned, I won't be able to keep myself from wondering what my dentist does on the weekends.
Grade: A-
Roger Dodger (2002)
Artful Roger!
Critics adore independent films. Made usually on shoestring budgets and starring either no-bodies, wannabees or actors trying to make a statement, independent films are usually made by people who love movies for people who love movies. Enter Dylan Kidd's writing and directing debut, the 2002 terrifically funny and memorable film Roger Dodger.
Campbell Scott (The Spanish Prisoner) plays Roger Swanson, a fast talking, chain-smoking, ever drinking 30-something that believes he is truly God's gift to earthly women. We are first introduced to Roger as he engages in conversation with fellow co-workers at a public restaurant and Roger dominates the conversation offering his views on man's ability over women to read maps, the workings and history of the female genatalia and why science and evolution will have men being reduced to servitude in 10 to 15 generations. Roger dominates the dialogue and with rapid fire crass and the occasional sneer at those that joke at his revelations, we are introduced to a man who is on a conceited high that will eventually lead to his emotional crisis.
Enter Roger's nephew, Nick (played by Jesse Eisenberg) who shows up from out of town and looks to Roger for help in the disposing of his virginity. Roger, acting more like someone who wants to show off his masculine powers than act that of a big brother, takes Nick under his wing for a night of adventure. The self-professed 'FN lightening rod' for sex sneaks Nick into bars, takes him to a house party and eventually to an underground brothel in an attempt to shed the youngster of his innocence. But with each new venue, we are exposed to Roger's vulnerability and we experience a man who is on a kamikaze mission to destruction.
In a touching scene between Nick and two women picked up at a local bar (played understatedly by Jennifer Beals and Elizabeth Berkley), it is Nick's innocence and honestly that has the women swoon over Roger's frank and demeaning manner. The scene is wonderfully lit with just street lights and the camera angles which sometimes don't focus on the talking character, suck you in so that you believe you are on that cold park bench with them.
This is the genius that is usually associated with the independent films. People talk over each other, and sets are usually actual locations that lend to the aura and feel of the film. Dylan Kidd uses what light is available to him and sometimes that means that characters are talking in the dark corners of an alley or are blocked out by the backs of other actors. However, one is never lost or feels betrayed by the filmmakers because the dialogue remains so crisp and real.
Campbell Scott won a best actor award from the National Board of Review of Motion Pictures for his role in Roger Dodger and in my opinion, he was overlooked for an Academy Award nomination for the same role. He delivers the Tarantino-ish dialogue with precision and makes this disgusting character of a man someone that we can relate to or at least understand.
My final note about independent films is that they don't have the pressure to produce the 'Hollywood' ending. Roger Dodger ends not with Roger realizing the err of his way, but with a poignant adult talk with some school boys who show us the same immaturity as Roger, just at a younger understanding. Kudos to all those involved with this marvelous film that was indeed one of the best of 2002.
Open Range (2003)
A classic!
I've seen many of Kevin Costner's movies (both acting and directing), and even more westerns, and I'd have to say that this movie is the best in either category. I've always thought Costner a sub-par actor, but I couldn't imagine anyone else playing the role of Charlie. He had it down.
The rest of the cast was superb as well. Luna (Button) and Benrubi (Mose) are both destined for greatness. Gambon (Baxter) and Duval (Boss) have been around long enough to do things right. Bening (Sue) is a better (and better-looking) actress than ever before. The supporting cast, and the characters they create, all flowed together so strongly and believably that I would've watched a movie about a week in the life of the town before Mose showed up that fateful day. The shopkeeper and Percy (Jeter) particularly shined, but every single citizen of that town gave the impression they had a story to tell. But I digress, because cast and characters alone do not a movie make.
The dialog in many movies today is too geared to what the audience needs to hear. Rather than a fly-on-the-wall point of view on a realistic event, we normally get verbose exposition and other generally out-of-character dialog, so that the less intuitive viewer doesn't get left behind. In "Open Range", we're given a story. Four men and the task they must accomplish, with only the words any four men in a similar situation would say to each other. There wasn't anything directed to our tutelage alone, simply a bare-bones character drama. It felt real, like I could have been right there in the midst of things. That is the way movies SHOULD be. I applaud the creative minds behind this, and Costner, the ringmaster, above all others.
I have not seen another film that captured the beauty of the title character (the open range, nyuk nyuk) in such a light. While I'm sure that at least some of the footage was shot in a studio, and picturesque backdrops appeared to be inserted in the terrain at some points, the believability that this was 1880's "Old West" was always there. From the wide open skies and rolling hills to the pebbled creeks and fresh-built townscapes, I was thoroughly impressed.
The set/art direction weren't the only elements that capitalized on this beauty. Often, the camera operator (and undoubtedly Costner himself) had found amazing camera angles/motion to accentuate the finer elements of the sets. One such picturesque moment came in the form of an establishing shot of the cool, clear pebbled creek, shot from just inches above the surface, as the horses drank the purity of nature itself. Another shot shows the hills/mountains with lightning crashing around them as a storm billows its way to town. Was this an effects shot or not? I don't rightly know, and I was too impressed to care. The movie is beautiful.
There is also a beautifully mastered scene in which Charlie awakes from an unsettling dream and at first doesn't know the dream from reality. The use of camera motion and picture superimposition here isn't so over-the-top that it feels out of place in the rest of the "artistic" film. It's hard for someone to accomplish that.
All technical terms aside, this film was born from talent. The writers, actors, and most importantly the director knew how to make a film enjoyable. When a movie just plain works, it's because the producers have assembled a group of personalities that work well together. This movie obviously had that. I'm very much looking forward to whatever it is that Costner decides to bring us next. I have been shown the light.
9 out of 10, "classic"