segacs Reviews

A Tale of Love and Darkness (2015)

A collection of beautiful parts that don't quite add up to a whole

[4/10 · 18 September 2016]

I wanted to like this. I really did. Natalie Portman's directorial debut taking on an epic Amos Oz novel about his early life set against the tale of the birth of the State of Israel should have been wonderful. Instead, it felt like a series of beautiful cinematic vignettes that didn't quite come together to form a cohesive narrative. The dramatic tension is missing. The motivations of Oz and his mother and father are not explained. A couple of political scenes inserted to give some context -- namely the scene with the Arab girl and her brother, and the scene where the UN vote is being read out -- feel clunky and not well linked to the more personal story being told. If I hadn't come into the movie already having a good grasp of the history of mandatory Palestine and Israel's early years, I feel I would have been totally lost, as so much was glossed over or not really explored. Moreover, the most interesting parts to me were those that explored Amos's relationship with his father, but Portman chose to focus the narrative on his enigmatic, struggling mother -- someone you get the sense that the boy himself never really understood. There are a lot of wonderful scenes here, but they don't really go anywhere. Haval.

Mad Max: Fury Road (2015)

Basically just one long chase scene

[3/10 · 17 May 2015]

This movie is getting so much hype and buzz that people would have you believe it's Oscar-worthy. Well, nothing could be further from the truth. I was bored after the first half hour. Zero character development, the barest minimum of backstory, a silly plot that is essentially one big U-turn, and no acting to speak of. All the bad guys are faceless and nameless, and the good guys aren't much better. It's like playing a shoot 'em up video game where you just go through scores and scores of identical bad guys, blow up lots of things, face off with the big boss, and rescue the princess(es) by the end. It takes summer blockbuster to a new low -- I mean, the special effect action movies tend to at least have some likable characters and a little bit of humour and maybe some decent one-liners, but this has none of the above. Unless you like watching two hours straight of things exploding, this isn't for you. Two stars for the beautiful Namibia scenery and one star for Charlize Theron, but that's it.

Library Wars (2013)

Cute action film / romantic comedy, but falls down on the anti-censorship message

[4/10 · 30 July 2013]

I saw this at Fantasia Festival here in Montreal. It was billed as a "warning cry against the excesses of censorship and a thrilling, high-powered action film." Well, it did a fairly decent job at the latter, but sort of fell down on the former.

I think Library Wars couldn't quite decide whether to be a light-hearted romantic comedy or an action movie with a cool urban backdrop. It attempted both, at times fairly well, interspersing shoot-em-up military action scenes and martial arts against a classic tale of a slightly inept heroine looking for her prince charming. There were plenty of funny moments in the romantic plot line, and the action sequences started slow but the pace picked up in the second half. So the movie, overall, was entertaining enough.

The thing is, entertaining doesn't necessarily mean smart. The whole premise of the movie didn't really stand up to much scrutiny. You had two ostensibly legal government forces fighting one another using military force, which was a bit of a head-scratcher. The dialogue and script were -- even allowing for a poor translation -- pretty cheesy. And for a movie supposedly set in a near-future in an alternate reality, there was next to no attention paid to world-building.

Most problematically, the movie claimed the turf of an important, highly relevant issue -- censorship -- and then relegated it to little more than a MacGuffin. After establishing the Library Defence Force as the good guys and the Media Betterment Committee as the bad guys, you basically have an old-fashioned western with white hats and black hats, and the issue they're fighting for is never explored or delved into in any way beyond that setup. They could have been fighting to protect anything and the plot would have been exactly the same. We never get the sense that books or the thoughts they contain matter to the storyline or to the message of the film.

Library Wars is based on a book, which I haven't read but can only assume spent more time developing some of these premises. As for the film, it was good for a few laughs, some charming (if exaggerated) comedic acting, and a few good action sequences. I could easily envision it being turned into a video game, with a female main character battling bad guys through library stacks.

But the film never quite rises to its subject matter. The issue of censorship has perhaps never been more topical, relevant or critical, and Library Wars doesn't really seem to have anything of importance to say about it, which is disappointing considering all that it could have been.

In Bruges (2008)

Dark comedy, great dialogue, fantastic setting, but not what you'd expect

[7/10 · 13 February 2008]

Went to see it for the setting. Loved it for the dialogue. Wished it had just gone a bit further.

In Bruges is a dark comedy set in the beautiful medieval town of Bruges, Belgium, featuring an Irish duo of hit men who have been ordered by their boss to hide out there after a high-profile job in London went sour. Their instructions are to keep a low profile, sightsee, and generally avoid trouble until further notice.

But all is not as it seems.

The dialogue between Gleeson and Farrell is witty, delivered with perfect comic timing, zany, and a joy to watch. Farrell and the charming Clémence Poésy also have great chemistry and are fun to watch on screen. The humour is designed to make viewers uncomfortable, and succeeds remarkably on this count. If you're looking for political correctness, you won't find it here. What you will find are jabs at Americans, tourists, gays, blacks, whites, fat people, and oh yeah, midgets. As this odd assortment of characters mixes and mingles in the streets of Bruges, the tension builds.

And there's just enough of a psychological dark edge to keep things interesting. This is a comedy, yes, but it's by no means light and fluffy. This movie has been compared to The Big Hit or The Whole Nine Yards, but in fact, it's much, much darker. And in my opinion, that makes it better.

Shot entirely on location in Bruges, the backdrop is of course stunning. I originally went to see this knowing absolutely nothing about it other than the title, simply because, having visited Bruges, I couldn't resist an opportunity to see it on the big screen. Filmed in the wintertime and largely at night, Bruges itself is one of the stars of the movie. Like the other characters, it is not portrayed as light, airy, innocent or picturesque, the way it is in real life. Instead, its more haunting quality is captured elegantly on film, with a heavy mist giving the town a sort of eerie, dream-like quality.

So much of this movie was just right, and I highly recommend it to people who like twisted humour and aren't easily offended.

I have two issues with this film, however. The first is the score. The music is completely wrong for this movie, giving it a feel that doesn't work at all with the dark comedy tone. The melancholy, slow, stirring music would've worked nicely with a drama or a psychological period piece, but just seems out of place here.

The second issue is with the ending. Nope, I won't give it away. Suffice to say, I thought it was wrong, wrong, wrong. All wrong. Almost as though the author couldn't figure out what to do next or how to end this thing.

But overall, I really enjoyed In Bruges. It was wickedly funny, daringly different, and fantastically non-PC. And the shots of Bruges are wonderful. Despite what the main characters say about the place, Bruges is really quite wonderful. I suggest seeing both the movie and the city.

School of Rock (2003)

Laughed till I cried, then came back for more

[7/10 · 27 January 2008]

The true test of a great movie is one that, months or years after its release, has me watching it again and again. School of Rock is just such a movie.

It never pretends to be anything more than it is: a lighthearted, feel-good comedy, one of those teacher-inspires-kids plots with a twist, sort of a Sister Act II with Jack Black instead of Whoopi Goldberg (a vast improvement if you ask me). Nothing we haven't seen or heard before, but a great script, some enthusiasm, kids with actual talent, and Jack Black's natural zaniness make this movie work. And you know what? It's actually funny. As in, really, really funny.

Jack Black is one of those actors who you can just wind up and let go with a script, and he'll take it to a whole new level. His enthusiasm is contagious, and the audience gets as caught up in it as the kids. Joan Cusack is laugh-out-loud funny in her role as the foil/school principal. And the music ain't half bad either.

Okay, so the plot is unrealistic, the movie's about as deep as a frat boy, and there is very little to learn here about the human condition. But here's a movie that doesn't promise anything other than to entertain. And entertain it does.

Atonement (2007)

Disappointing

[5/10 · 26 January 2008]

When the book "Atonement" was getting so much buzz, I read it, expecting great things. What I was left with was a feeling of "is that all?" It was an okay book, even intriguing at times, with a nice use of language and description. But I felt it was a rather bloated, overlong way to make what is essentially a simple point: Don't lie.

That's probably why I didn't rush out to see the movie. But with all the Oscar buzz it was getting, I figured, why not? What works well as slow in a novel doesn't necessarily translate well to screen at the same slow pacing. A movie needs to have pacing, character development, something to hold attention. This just didn't do it. I thought the performances were just humdrum, even Keira Knightley, who has the ability to be so much better. The actresses playing Briony didn't accomplish much other than looking vaguely alike. And we never really get an opportunity to understand the romance between Cee and Robbie; it begins with a crude letter, peaks with one hasty sexual encounter, and then drops off into oblivion.

The direction, cinematography and musical score are all excellent, and I could spend all day watching the beautiful costumes and scenery. But I really found this movie merely mediocre overall. I can usually tell after exiting a movie theatre whether a movie will be one that I'll want to re-watch again and again. Atonement, I could instantly tell, would be a one-shot deal.

Little Miss Sunshine (2006)

A brilliant commentary on the American family

[8/10 · 26 January 2008]

Little Miss Sunshine is about a girl who wants to be Miss America.

Well, sort of. Actually, it's really about a family that, despite consisting of the most messed-up cast of characters you might imagine, is actually relatively normal, in all the ways that count.

A father terrified of failure, especially his own. A grandfather who likes loose women, crude language, and heroin. A brother who has taken a vow of silence until he gets his dream of entering the air force academy. A gay scholarly uncle who, after a bad breakup, has recently attempted suicide. A harried mother trying to hold everyone together. And oh yeah, a remarkably and refreshingly unspoiled little girl, who dreams in her own innocent way of being Miss America. Pile them all into a bright yellow VW bus with a broken clutch - and horn - as they try to rush Olive to the Little Miss Sunshine pageant and see what ensues.

What does unfold is not only pure comedic gold, but also a refreshing commentary on family, values and the hypocrisy of the world in general. Without revealing too much, the movie's ending exposes this hypocrisy in such a spot-on way that it has audiences leaping to their feet and cheering.

Way to go, Little Miss Sunshine! A must-see.

P.S. I Love You (2007)

Total tearjerker falsely billed as a romantic comedy

[7/10 · 26 January 2008]

I saw this movie on a girls-night-out to the movies, and we chose it on the basis of the previews, which had billed it as a romantic comedy. Wow, were they ever wrong! The basic plot is this: Woman loses husband far too early and tragically. Woman grieves for husband, hard. Husband, through a plan pre-arranged before his death, sends woman letters at set intervals, each one causing a fresh stream of tears to fall.

The acting was great. Hillary Swank was particularly good in her role, and let us see her vulnerability and conflicting emotions. The supporting cast was all excellent, and ladies, there is more than enough male eye candy in this movie to go around.

But - and I strongly warn all of you considering this as a light comedy or a date movie - it's sad. Very very sad. Even the happy parts are sad. If you go see this, wear waterproof mascara and bring lots of tissues. Don't say I didn't warn you.

Charlie Wilson's War (2007)

A scathing attack on US foreign policy, disguised as comedy

[7/10 · 26 January 2008]

Michael Moore, eat your heart out. You've got nothing' on Aaron Sorkin.

Most of the reviews I've read of this movie missed the point by a mile. I've read criticism of the movie for being too light-hearted, for glorifying a terrible war and being too cheeky with the consequences. And I have to wonder, were they watching the same movie? Or were they simply taking it at face value, failing to notice that the entire movie was a thinly-veiled parody? Charlie Wilson's War is about a corrupt, live-hard-party-harder congressman from Texas (Hanks) who embodies just about all the negative qualities of humanity we can imagine. He chases and objectifies women, nearly gets brought down in a drug scandal, and freely admits his love of politics stems from the realization he could manipulate people. It's a movie about how he became a hero by almost single-handedly funding and fighting a covert war in Afghanistan that ultimately drove out the Soviet Army and helped trigger the collapse of the Soviet Union. And though the characters in the movie celebrate this "achievement", the movie itself, emphatically, does not.

Hoffman, ironically, plays the voice of conscience. I say ironically, because he plays Gust Avrakotos, a corrupt, sardonic CIA agent who plays both sides and mostly encourages Wilson in his effort. But unlike Wilson, who, despite his smoothness, can be read as somewhat naive, Gust knows exactly what he is doing and seems to have a firm grasp of what the consequences could be. If anything, this makes him guiltier than Wilson, but he's also the only one to voice the film's true message aloud: "We'll see".

That zen master speech that Hoffman delivers at the end of the movie felt a bit heavy-handed to me. But then, maybe I overestimated the movie's audience. Because it seemed like it was tacked on at the end to spell out to anyone who was left wondering that the entire movie was a reference to the events that led up to 9/11, and the short-sightedness of America's involvement in wars all over the world that backfired. Reading outside comments and reviews, though, maybe the speech wasn't enough, because I have to wonder why so few people seem to get it.

A longtime fan of the West Wing, I have always admired Sorkin's lack of need to talk down to his audience. This movie might have struck the wrong balance: just smart enough to be witty, and just dumb enough to attract a massive audience more accustomed to Michael Moore-like, in-your-face criticism of foreign policy, rather than the light touch chosen here. That's why I believe this film has had such a hard time finding its audience.

Of the two approaches, I still vastly prefer this one, though. A Moore film is poorly-researched, underhanded manipulative cheese, and I freely admit I can't stand the guy. But Charlie Wilson's War, despite its brief pandering to its far-left audience (was it really necessary to perpetuate the stereotypes about Jewish money and influence in Congress, Sorkin?) pulls off something neater, cleaner, and far more intelligent. When Wilson, who mostly plays his way through life, gets his heartstrings tugged by the refugees in Peshawar, it's not an appeal to the sympathy of the audience that we're witnessing, but rather, the cheap tactics that utterly sway a man so naive that he asks for alcohol from the president of Pakistan. Wilson, we are drawn to understand, is living proof why a little bit of knowledge - with a lack of perspective - can be a dangerous thing. Was it really Charlie Wilson's War? Or was it the war of those who manipulated Wilson to encourage the US short-sighted approach whereby the enemy of the enemy is (falsely and disastrously) considered to be a friend?

The acting, of course, was spot-on. Hanks and Hoffman both nailed their roles to a T, and what's more, they were a real pleasure to watch on screen. Amy Adams does a great job with her role. The one person I felt was miscast was Julia Roberts. She was playing the ultimate symbol of everything this movie disagreed with, but she seemed too young and tentative to really pull it off. I would've liked to see someone else in her role.

That aside, this is a fine film, with excellent dialogue and some real food for thought. I recommend it to those who can open their eyes enough to understand what is really being said here. 7/10.

The Diving Bell and the Butterfly (2007)

Moving. Inspiring. Haunting. Heartbreaking. A must-see.

[9/10 · 12 January 2008]

This is the story of a man named Jean-Dominique Bauby. Editor-in-chief of Elle magazine, father, lover, friend, dreamer and writer. Oh, and did I mention, after an attack, completely paralyzed except in his left eye, which he used to painstakingly blink out the words of an entire book (on which this movie is based). His intact mind a prisoner of his broken body, Bauby tries to hold on, get his voice across, and dares to ask the question brought up by a character early on: What is it that makes us human? This beautifully acted, directed and imagined movie brings Bauby's own experienced to screen, using vast imagery to bring the dreams of the author to vivid life on screen. The nuanced performances of the entire cast are top notch. And the cinematography in every scene, whether on a beach, in the French countryside, the streets of Paris seen sideways, or a hospital bed, is just stunning.

It's about the death of a man, yes. But it's also about the triumph of the human spirit. And like most of the best stories, it's absolutely true.

Moving. Inspiring. Haunting. Heartbreaking. A must-see.

The Illusionist (2006)

Beautiful, unusual and eminently watchable

[8/10 · 14 October 2007]

Is there any acting role that the fantastically talented Edward Norton can't pull off? In "The Illusionist", he takes on the role of Eisenheim, the turn-of-the-century Viennese magician and entertainer who gets caught up in a love triangle. And what we get as an audience is a real treat: A beautifully-shot, superbly acted, mind-bending mystery and love story.

The plot is at once simple and complex. On its face, it's a basic love triangle between Eisenheim, his childhood love, the Duchess Sophie, and her fiancé, who just so happens to be the Crown Prince (and who has a streak of jealousy and a nasty temper). Eisenheim and Sophie reconnect after she attends one of his performances, and the tension builds as the audience is left to wonder how the whole thing will play out.

Edward Norton plays Eisenheim as an inscrutable, mysterious man who can speak volumes with his eyes. Paul Giamatti is a pleasant surprise in his role as the not-entirely-corrupt Chief Inspector Uhl. And Rufus Sewell is a treat as the villain in the movie, Crown Prince Leopold.

The one thing that threatened to ruin this movie for me was the casting of Jessica Biel as Sophie. A lot of people maintain that this movie proves her acting ability; I disagree. She was wooden, cardboard almost, and her performance looked ridiculously amateurish next to the skills of Norton and company. Sorry, guys, I know you might like to look at her, but she can't act.

Besides that, this is a fantastic movie and is highly worth seeing. No, I won't ruin the ending for you, if you haven't been spoiled already. But I will say that, unlike the Sixth Sense, this movie is an enjoyable journey whether or not you see the destination coming.

8/10. Quality.

A Time to Kill (1996)

Contrived and heavy-handed

[4/10 · 26 August 2007]

A Time To Kill is based on John Grisham's first novel, the one he wrote before he was famous, and the one that didn't skyrocket him to fame. (That would be accomplished by "The Firm"). That's why this movie didn't get made until much later, after Grisham was off churning out meaningless books with the movie dollar signs fresh in his head. Unlike most of those, this book was actually about something. It had meat, it had weight, and it had heart.

But it also had a fatal flaw, and this fatal flaw gets translated into the movie. Namely, "A Time To Kill" sets you up.

Here we have a black man (Jackson), on trial for the murder of two white men who brutally raped and tortured his 10-year-old daughter. We have an underdog lawyer (McConaughey) battling the big bad system to save his client. And oh, by the way, the whole thing is set against the backdrop of racism in Mississippi, complete with hooded KKK men burning crosses.

In other words, we're supposed to sympathize with Carl Lee Hailey. We're supposed to believe that a father who loves his daughter is justified in killing the men who raped her. We're supposed to feel the injustice of a system where a racist all-white jury could judge a black man who was just trying to avenge a brutal crime. We're supposed feel like we're standing alongside the people chanting "Free Carl Lee".

But the racism issue is a smokescreen, and the whole thing is contrived. Carl Lee Hailey was a vigilante. Yes, there were mitigating circumstances for what he did, but the fact remains that he wasn't innocent. This would have been true no matter what his skin colour, or the skin colour of the assailants of his daughter, the judge, the jury, or anyone else.

And what's so heavy-handed about this film is that it paints anyone who believes Carl Lee should have been convicted is a racist. The message seems to be that if you believe that the law shouldn't be taken into people's own hands, then you might as well be burning crosses on a lawn somewhere wearing a hood.

This isn't the first time a heavy dose of sentimentalism is inserted into a story like this, and it won't be the last. As a movie, A Time To Kill stays pretty faithful to the book, and the acting isn't half bad. But it played the hand it had been dealt, really. Even a good cast can't elevate bad source material.

Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (2007)

Thank you, David Yates, for the best HP film yet!

[8/10 · 14 July 2007]

It was with significant trepidation that I went to see Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix. I'd been somewhat disappointed with Alfonso Cuaron's PoA's film adaptation, and severely disappointed (even angered) by the travesty that was Mike Newell's vision of Hogwarts in GoF. OOTP is my favourite book of the series, and I was worried that the plot, characterization and overall film wouldn't be true to JK Rowling's vision.

Well, I needn't have worried. Director David Yates pulled this off in a way that had me grinning throughout the entire movie, because it was clear from the opening titles right through the closing credits, here, finally, is a man who "gets it".

Thank you, Mr Yates, for directing the young stars in such a way that fits their age. The awkward interactions between Harry and Cho, the conflicts within Harry himself, Neville's transformation, even Luna's dreaminess, all well-executed. He even managed to rein in the chemistry between Dan Radcliffe and Emma Watson that was leaping off the page in the previous two movies, recognizing - as any true fan would - that despite the actors' obvious affinity for one another, it's really Ron that Hermione is supposed to be falling for. Watson still has virtually no chemistry with Rupert Grint, but at least an attempt was made at giving them more interaction to set up the plot line for later.

Thank you, thank you, thank you Mr Yates, for restoring my Dumbledore! I'd been unimpressed with Michael Gambon in the third movie, downright horrified with him in the fourth, but it was clear from this movie that the man can act, he just needs better direction. Here, he got it, and returned to being the Dumbledore we all know, love and trust.

Thank you, Imelda Staunton, for bringing Dolores Umbridge to life, exactly as evil and as nuanced as she should be. Her performance was pitch-perfect every step of the way.

Thank you, Mr Yates, for the attention to background detail. While I recognize that it's impossible to put every single subplot from the book into a movie, you managed to condense pages and pages from the book into corners of the screen in such a way that made us feel like we weren't missing anything.

Thank you to the set designers, editors, animators and directors, for bringing to life the Ministry of Magic in such a stunning way, exactly how I pictured it. Seeing the movie in IMAX 3D was well worth it for the amazing scenes at the Ministry, but even the non-3D scenes were beautifully executed.

No doubt, people are angry at the changes and omissions to the plot. That has been me for every book so far, especially the last one. But here, I found I didn't mind so much. The scenes didn't feel rushed, and the movie made sense as a stand-alone. (One of the friends I saw it with hadn't read the book, and I found there was next to nothing that I had to explain later to her; she'd understood it all from the movie. This was certainly *not* the case in GoF). What changes were made were done for a reason, and I felt they stayed true to the spirit of the book, bringing to life what was most important and simplifying some elements that were less critical. The story was well told, and essence of the movie was very true to the book, while still making sure not to rush through scenes or sacrifice emotion for the sake of action.

David Yates is the first director of a Harry Potter film since Chris Columbus's to truly get it. I'm relieved and thrilled that this movie was so great, and am glad to hear that Mr Yates will be staying on to direct HPB.

A must-see for any fan and also for any skeptic. 8/10.

The Holiday (2006)

Harmless but forgettable holiday fluff

[5/10 · 27 December 2006]

This was a cute movie, based on a completely contrived only-in-the-movies plot about two women - one British (Kate Winslet) and one American (Cameron Diaz) who decide impulsively to swap houses for two weeks over Christmas. What follows is a lighthearted film showing the two women finding love, laughter and themselves while living in each other's countries and, to some degree, lives.

What this movie has going for it is plenty of eye candy (Jude Law looks great here, ladies), a few cute subplots, and a lot of humorous - if not particularly original - moments. It's cute, period. It's not smart, it's not sassy, it's not stylish in any way. It doesn't try to be any more than it is. It doesn't make too much of an effort at believability or realistic plot turns, and if you watch this, you're better off just letting the plot holes slide without too much analysis.

And it certainly doesn't try to answer any of the big questions it could potentially open up, specifically, about long-distance relationships and whether they could ever work. The ending is unsatisfying for precisely this reason. We never really learn anything about life, love or the nature of relationships. It's a fuzzy, feel-good ending complete with singing and dancing, but no real answers.

Enjoyable... as long as you shut your brain off. And will be forgotten by spring. 5/10.

Coyote Ugly (2000)

Just plain awful!

[3/10 · 23 December 2006]

Does any of this sound familiar: Small-town girl goes to big city to pursue her dreams. Small-town girl faces obstacles in the big bad city. Girl meets some tough-talking friends and does some ethically questionable things in pursuit of her dreams. Girl meets perfect guy who sweeps her off her feet and believes in her. Girl makes all her dreams come true.

If you've heard it all before, you're not alone. "Coyote Ugly" breaks no new ground, takes no risks, and doesn't even have any decent acting to redeem the movie. It's almost painful to watch Piper Perabo trying to decide whether her character is tough-and-sexy or sweet-and-innocent. She gets neither quite right, and in truth should've just gone for "porn star" because that's how she comes across.

The script is laughably awful, containing lines that surely made movie audiences across the nation groan aloud and roll their eyes. The plot - such as it is - is utterly unrealistic and offers us nothing in the way of insight, profound thinking, or even lighthearted laughs. Some men (mostly teenaged boys) may like this because it features good-looking women dancing on a bar... but even those scenes are fairly tame compared to most of what you'd find in your average PG-rated flick these days. The movie sets back the cause of empowerment of women by at least five decades. Oh, and the soundtrack blows. In fact, there are almost no redeeming qualities here whatsoever.

So why the three stars? I'll give one star alone to Maria Bello for her performance as the bar owner who turns out to have a heart under her tough-as-nails exterior. And I'll give another star to the dance sequences, which, while tame, were at least fun and mildly energetic. The final one is for John Goodman, who has one of his worst roles here, but is a cut above anything else in this mess.

Two hours of my life I wish I could have back.

Chasing Amy (1997)

A brilliant, funny, honest look at relationships

[8/10 · 23 December 2006]

This is one of my all-time favourite movies and one of my faves in the View Askewniverse (surpassed only narrowly by Clerks), and it's as relevant today as it was when it was released nearly a decade ago. (In fact, the only thing dating the film is that these days, Kevin Smith is casting his wife, Jen, instead of his then-girlfriend Joey Lauren Adams, in his movies).

As with most of Smith's movies, the basic plot here is simple, focusing more on witty dialogue and banter than on action or suspense. That said, "Chasing Amy" is a definite step forward for Smith - it takes the gross-out humour and comic-book dialogue and adds a heaping dose of character development and heart.

Ben Affleck stars as Holden, another homage name (see Dante in Clerks), a comic book artist who has fallen in love with Alyssa, played by Joey Lauren Adams. There's just one problem: Alyssa is a lesbian, and Holden doesn't exactly fit into her plans. Jason Lee, as Holden's best friend, disapproves and thinks that Holden is just setting himself up for heartbreak.

What ensues is a sometimes hilariously-funny, sometimes sad, but touchingly and refreshingly realistic look at modern relationships, labels, definitions, sexuality, and human nature. Smith is never heavy-handed - his dialogue is just as crude as ever, but he resists the temptation to preach or to go with the obvious here. And of course he makes his requisite cameo as Silent Bob alongside buddy Jason Mewes as Jay - and when Silent Bob speaks here, he actually gets to say something interesting for a change (no I won't give it away, watch the movie!) This isn't really a movie about homosexuality... and guys, if you're going to see it in hopes of some raunchy lesbian sex scenes, you'll be disappointed. Instead, it's a movie about relationships and friendships in general. And, for a Kevin Smith movie, it's incredibly mature. If you haven't seen this yet, I highly recommend it!

Chocolat (2000)

Enchanting, beautiful... and delicious!

[8/10 · 23 December 2006]

I'm a chocoholic, and seeing this movie was enough to keep my mouth watering throughout. But it was about so much more than just the amazingly delicious-looking chocolate.

Juliette Binoche is amazingly charming and enchanting, playing the lead role in this fairy tale about a woman named Vianne and her daughter who move to a repressed small town in France, and throw it into turmoil by attacking the taboos of the townspeople one by one. Binoche is stunning; she literally lights up the screen. Johnny Depp, playing opposite her, is great as usual. And Alfred Molina puts in a fantastic performance as Vianne's foil, the Comte Paul de Reynaud.

Superficially, this is at once a fairy tale, a love story, and a story about chocolate. On a deeper level, it's a classic tale of conservatism versus shaking things up, of the old ways being pitted against new ideas, and of the whole question of morality itself.

All of this is wrapped up in an utterly enchanting - and dare I say - delicious package. So go ahead, take a bite out of "Chocolat" - it's a lot of fun and completely calorie-free!

Brokeback Mountain (2005)

Slow but poignant

[8/10 · 23 December 2006]

Brokeback Mountain is a simple, tragic love story.

There, I've said it. Because, once you strip away all the media attention and hype surrounding this movie, that's all it is. No more, no less. It's a story of forbidden love, as old and as tragic as any Romeo-and-Juliet-based tale. And if it weren't for the fact that it was about a couple of dudes, most people probably would have never heard of it. (After all, how many of you saw "The Shipping News"?) It's well-acted, to be sure. Jake Gyllenhaal is particularly good as Jack, and the absolutely gorgeous Heath Ledger holds his own pretty well as Ennis, despite a disastrous attempt at a Wyoming accent. The interplay between the two is mostly non-verbal and is well done.

The cinematography is beautiful, the scenery (mostly filmed in Alberta, Canada) is gorgeous, and there is fantastic use of symbolism. Yes, it's a bit slow at times, and yes, it's quite sad, but it is really a beautiful movie when it comes down to it.

It's a real shame that this movie will be most remembered for a couple of sex scenes in a tent. Because it's about so much more than that. Love, loss, passion, jealousy, uneven relationships, hope and despair - all universal human emotions that have nothing to do with sexual orientation. With all the talk about gay rights and equality, I think that there will only truly be equality when we can judge a love story - gay or straight - on its own merits. And this one certainly passes the test.

American History X (1998)

Disturbing and powerful

[8/10 · 23 December 2006]

American History X stars Edward Norton as a racist, xenophobic skinhead who is convicted of murder and sent to prison. It follows the effect of this on his family, specifically on his younger brother, played by Edward Furlong, who idolizes him and yearns to follow in his footsteps.

The movie is powerful and disturbing in the insider's look it gives us into the dark world of violent racist skinhead groups. For this reason, it is very difficult to watch. But it's an important film, because it tackles a subject that Hollywood is usually content to shy away from.

Edward Norton, always one of my favourite actors, has one of his best roles of all time here. He is absolutely brilliant in his portrayal of Derek Vinyard, a character whose charisma and intelligence could have led him down pretty much any path, but who chose the wrong road. How many infamous men in history have had the exact same qualities? Countless. Norton embraces the role, wholly embodying the most terrible qualities of his character, and refusing to shy away from giving his all to even the most difficult scenes. He has even transformed his entire body to play this part (compare his muscular build here to his scrawniness in "Fight Club", for instance). Norton is so believable, and so compelling to watch, that it's all too easy to see how he could have recruited and inspired so many people to his fanatically hateful ideology. Also brilliant is Avery Brooks as the schoolteacher who tries so hard to redeem Derek when most people would have written him off long ago. Notable among smaller roles are performances by Fairuza Balk as Vinyard's girlfriend and Beverly D'Angelo as his conflicted mother. This is a dramatic film, and the acting has made it what it is.

My criticisms are few. Furlong's acting isn't quite as strong - at times it seems like he's reading lines aloud for a teacher. And without giving too much away, the ending comes across as a bit too contrived. At times, the movie skirts dangerously close to after-school-special territory, and it can be a bit heavy-handed in its preachiness. It's not a perfect film, by any means.

But it's a provocative film, one that I urge parents to watch with their teenagers and that is sure to open up a lot of discussion. A must-see.

Before Sunset (2004)

Really regret seeing it!

[5/10 · 23 December 2006]

"Before Sunrise" was one of my all-time favourite movies, but when I heard they were making a sequel, I was nervous. The open ending of the first installment was so note-perfect in leaving people free to draw their own conclusions about what happened that I didn't want it to be ruined. As such, I delayed seeing this as long as possible.

I should have delayed longer. Much longer. Like, forever.

Simply put, "Before Sunset" takes a couple of intriguing, interesting, fully-drawn characters and turns them into insufferable cads, caught up in their own memories and having achieved nothing of note in their lives in ten years. It takes a beautiful, sweet chance romantic encounter and turns it into the cornerstone of these characters' lives. And it tries to make us believe that there's nothing better out there to hope for, ever. What a thoroughly depressing message! What injustice to these characters, who deserved a whole lot better! Of all the scenarios I ever imagined for these two, this was not it.

The first movie was great because it was about two people meeting by chance and truly connecting. But in the second movie, we're led to believe that since then, neither of them has managed to connect with anyone else. Both are in unsatisfying relationships when they meet up again - that part is not that hard to believe. But what is depressing in a creepy stalker-ish sort of way is that Hawke's character has devoted years of his life to writing about Delpy's, and that Delpy's character has devoted a significant amount of time to seeking out Hawke's character for a reunion.

Too, the movie downplays the thorny issue of marital infidelity and home-wrecking; people rooting for Hawke and Delpy to get back together should stop romanticizing everything and take a good hard look at the fact that they're cheering for a guy to leave (or at least cheat on) his wife and ditch his kid for a girl he had a one-night stand with nine years earlier. As for Delpy, she's writing and recording songs about a guy SHE had a one-night stand with. And neither of them quite realize the irony - that they're throwing away everything real in their lives in order to chase a fantasy that never really existed.

The first movie was great precisely because the characters were practical about the circumstances of their meeting; they accepted the fact that their connection was strong but brief, and that long-distance relationships don't work, and that the future is unpredictable. But neither took their own advice - instead, it seems they have been living hollowed half-existences for the past nine years, just waiting to find each other again.

And when they do, what exactly do they find? Is it realistic to think that these two will get along once they try to spend more than a single day together? It's all too obvious that they have nothing in common - even from the first movie, it's obvious that they differ politically, philosophically and culturally, and that the only reason they have such a great relationship is because it only lasts a night. By the second movie, they have grown even further apart on all those issues, plus they each carry around idealized, imaginary versions of one another that they have invented over a nine-year period and that will be impossible to live up to. Relationships - real relationships - are hard work, full of ups and downs, but they're *real*. What these two have isn't real. What they have is, well, just plain sad.

If you haven't seen it yet, I strongly urge you not to, because once you have seen it, there's no going back. These characters deserve so much better - just use your imagination.

The Devil Wears Prada (2006)

Devilishly unfunny

[4/10 · 23 December 2006]

This movie generated so much buzz when it came out that I initially resisted seeing it. Now that I finally did, I can't help but wonder what all the hype was about.

Starring Meryl Streep opposite Anne Hathaway, "The Devil Wears Prada" is loosely based on the book by the same name, and was billed as a funny-but-edgy insider's look into the cutthroat world of fashion. Instead, it is a fairly pedestrian teen movie, built along the lines of "She's All That" or its million predecessors, where the plain Jane girl gets a makeover and all her dreams come true. Or something.

Because the message itself gets a little lost here. Ostensibly, this movie is supposed to tell us that the world of fashion is evil, superficial, full of back-stabbers and snotty "clackers", and utterly devoid of any true meaning or purpose. But simultaneously, it tries to elevate fashion to a worthy pursuit on the same level as, say, curing AIDS or fighting world poverty. In trying to at once pay homage to and dissect the fashion world, the movie succeeds at neither.

Much has been said about the acting, namely, Meryl Streep's portrayal of her character. And while I agree that her deliberately understated performance elevated this movie to something beyond "disaster", I'd hardly give her lavish praise. Simply put, she's not nearly "devilish" enough. She's tough and, at first, snarky, but we never truly believe that she's evil. Driven, yes. Willing to step over people to get what she wants, sure. But evil?

In fact, nobody is quite mean enough here. Emily Blunt's character is snooty but ultimately likable, and Stanley Tucci plays the kind of "gal pal" every girl wishes she had. For a supposedly cutthroat world, people are falling all over themselves to help each other out. So much for the Devil.

And Anne Hathaway is charming and all, but she is just horribly miscast as the ugly duckling. She's a gorgeous girl who looks like a fashion model wearing the designer clothing she struts around in most of the movie, but she looked stunning even before that "makeover" and the suggested message was that the world of fashion has ridiculous, unrealistic standards.

That said, the movie never really passes enough judgment on these standards. When her success at work leads her to drive away those closest to her, the movie portrays her in a sympathetic light, and her boyfriend and her friends are portrayed as simply jealous, as opposed to as real people who love her for who she is and not for what she wears. When Hathaway's character proudly boasts that she's dropped from a size 6 to a size 4, it's done in such a way to make viewers believe that this is actually a good thing! Far from inspiring people to do the right thing, I fear all this movie will inspire is an epidemic of anorexia among young girls.

In the world of The Devil Wears Prada, there are no consequences, no shame, and no sore feet from running around town all day wearing ridiculous shoes. The plot is utterly ridiculous, including such impossible situations as Hathaway's character obtaining the (not yet written) manuscript to the seventh Harry Potter book. Can we at least stick to something with some semblance of reality here, people?

Salma Hayek's adaptation of "Betty La Fea" as "Ugly Betty", starring America Ferrera, takes the same concept and does it quite a bit better, to tell the truth. I'd give this a skip and try watching the TV series instead; whatever its faults, at least it has a bit more heart than this mess.

Clerks II (2006)

An entirely worthy sequel

[8/10 · 23 December 2006]

I tend to approach movie sequels with trepidation. Too frequently, they fall short of expectations. Often, they ruin a fabulous original ending that had initially been left to the imagination (like in "Before Sunset" - a total disappointment that ruined "Before Sunrise" and that I regret ever watching) or they simply feel recycled.

In this case I was even more skeptical, partly because Kevin Smith had reneged on his pledge to leave the View Askewniverse behind with the making of "Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back". The first Clerks is one of my all-time favourite movies, but could Smith pull it off again? Could Clerks have the same raw feel, with an actual budget (and in colour)? Or would it just wind up looking like a desperate move to reclaim some fame after the disaster-that-shall-not-be-mentioned-again of "Jersey Girl"? In the end, I couldn't resist watching it.

Well, I was pleasantly surprised. Clerks II is a great sequel precisely because it is all about the time passing. When I saw Clerks, I was a teenager, and it fit my life at the time. Now, just as time has passed in my life, so it has for Dante and Randal.

It was great to have the characters back, but the inside jokes were really kept to a minimum here (unlike in JSBSB, which was one 2-hour-long inside joke). Here, there's an actual plot, character development, and - dare I say - even some decent acting.

Most of all, this is a movie for all of us who sometimes worry that life is passing us by. For anyone who has ever wondered why they haven't achieved what they are "supposed to" achieve, or wondered why they don't ever feel they want the things they "should" want. This is a movie for people who don't fit in on the treadmill of career success, marital bliss, and the house in the suburbs. It's about figuring out what you want out of life, not going along with the expectations of others. Most of all, it's a movie about true, enduring friendship. In short, it's a perfect movie for anyone in their late 20s or early 30s. Everything, from the 90's soundtrack to the nostalgic references, is for those of us who, like Dante and Randal, have grown older but not necessarily grown up.

Oh, all the best touches are back - Star Wars dialogue, an abundance of bad language, ridiculously over-the-top kinky sex discussions, and of course Jay and Silent Bob in full form. Smith enthusiasts don't have to worry that this movie is too profound or too mature; the lighthearted, twisted, messed-up humour and great dialogue are still here.

But there's something more here. For me, this came along at the perfect time in my life. If you liked the first Clerks, I strongly urge you to pick up Clerks II and give it a watch.

Little Children (2006)

Disjointed

[5/10 · 6 November 2006]

The acting is terrific and the story sets up a lot of potentially compelling subplots. But, though we realise that these characters are all interconnected, the movie seems to treat them in a disjointed, sort of disconnected fashion. This is a movie that promises to reveal something profound - about human nature, about character, about the complexities of relationships and of people - but instead, it takes the easy way out. Just when it sets up these characters as well-rounded, it drops them, leaving the audience out in the cold. The impression I was left with at the end wasn't "wow" or "interesting" but just plain "weird". I had free passes to this, and am pretty glad I didn't pay for it. (Note: I saw the French dubbed version of this movie, which is what I am reviewing here).

Save the Last Dance (2001)

Trite and poorly written

[3/10 · 12 August 2006]

This movie is a sort of updated Romeo and Juliet- meets- Dirty Dancing, and attempts to take on the complex issues surrounding racism and stereotypes while showcasing some fun dancing. Unfortunately, it fails on every level, thanks to a poor script that allows this movie to lapse into the many stereotypes it was hoping to dispel.

The two leads - Julia Stiles and Sean Patrick Thomas - do what they can, but nobody could sell this drivel. The writing is cringe-worthy in many, many spots. At times, even the actors seem to be unable to believe that they're actually require to say some of the things that they say. Everyone in the film besides the leads speaks in the sort of "gansta" talk that seems like a Hollywood/MTV notion of how kids really speak. Then there are the clichés: the teenage mothers, the drive-by shootings, the drug dealers and pretty much everything else you could think of.

Even the dancing - the film's supposed highlight - is poorly shot, so you don't get to see the sequences properly. Stiles insisted on doing all her own ballet, rather than using a body double - an admirable sentiment, perhaps, but someone should've noticed that it made the whole subplot of her being good enough to audition for Julliard rather unbelievable when she's shown stumbling over even simple steps. The dance scenes at the club were so chopped up that the audience is denied even the simple pleasure of some great dance scenes to break up this saccharine, eye-rolling plot.

Save The Last Dance could never have been a truly excellent movie, but it could have at least been fun and entertaining. But the writing was so terrible, it doesn't even achieve this goal.

Bon Cop Bad Cop (2006)

Clichéd but very funny

[7/10 · 5 August 2006]

This is a classic buddy-cop caper movie with a twist: it's entirely bilingual, featuring two leads (Colm Feore and Patrick Huard) who are cops teamed up from opposite sides of the Quebec-Ontario border to solve a murder.

As a murder mystery, this movie doesn't really work. The suspense is laughable, the plot about as well strung-together as a paperclip chain, and the twists and turns designed more to bring about laughs than to actually advance the story. The hockey theme, of course, is more an excuse to make fun of people like Don Cherry, Eric Lindros and Gary Bettman than it is an actual plot device.

But this movie really gets it right when it comes to exploiting - and making fun of - the Quebec-Ontario cultural divide. Us Montrealers are accustomed to holding bilingual conversations, so a bilingual movie is the next logical step. Every single cliché imaginable finds its way into this one, and the comic timing is perfect. In fact, I was surprised at how much I laughed.

The English version of this film saw fit to introduce subtitles to the French portions, which were distracting at first until I realized that they were actually part of the joke. Fast readers will have a good laugh simultaneously listening to the French and reading the translation and comparing the two. Needless to say, they're quite different, but I suspect it was done that way on purpose.

Shame that it probably won't find an audience outside Quebec, because you pretty much have to be from here to "get" it. To all Montrealers, do run out and see this film!