A HUGE AMOUNT of reviews!
More than anyone should have to write at once. But I’ve been blessed. Sure, I’ve got a great marriage, a cute dog and nice apartment, but the true blessing I’ve received in my life is...
tons of free movies!
Not only am I a member of the SAG Film Society, soaking up 4-5 free movies a month, but I was recently RANDOMLY selected as a member of the SAG Nominating Committee. So, I will help choose which performances and casts get nominated for SAG Awards in the spring. Last year, I went to all the movies that had nominated performances for free, as all SAG members can. But now, I can see EVERYTHING for free! They’re even sending me DVDs of “Training Day”, “A.I.”, “Shrek”, “The Princess Diaries” and more!
Sweet, sweet bliss.
This, of course, means that I’ve seen ALOT since I last wrote capsule reviews. I still avoid previews and recommend that for everyone. Previews set preconcieved notions, ruin plot revelations and spoil a film's spontanaeity. I’ve alot of catching up to do and hope these reviews match wits with your opinion of past movies, and fill you in on stuff you haven’t seen yet! Remember, I do all I can to be generic in my comments by being minimal in plot summaries and specific in comments. Basically, I try not to be a preview... Read on, MacDuff!
OSMOSIS JONES (**) - See what I mean, I’m catching up from way back. This August comedy is clever. But it really doesn’t go far beyond the clever and interesting script. The film involves a guy on the overeating path to a heart attack, and the fight between a white cell, a medicine caplet and a virus inside his body is shown as animation. This is, again, a “clever” idea. By virtue of the fact that it’s so “clever”, it’s never “hilarious”. It’s not without redeeming performances - David Hyde Pierce is perfect for the voice of the cold-fighting medicine, and Laurence Fishburne is particularly smooth and evil as the virus. Yet, this is another example of Disney’s dominance in the animation department. They’ve set a standard, and any other animation (except computer-drawn), just seems less than stellar. Parts of “Prince of Egypt” were beautiful, and I like the twisted art of something like “Pink Floyd: The Wall”, but “Osmosis”’ art just seems a bit sparse and lacking something in comparison to something like “Atlantis”. As for the live-action half of the film, Bill Murray plays the world’s most disgusting man. I can’t imagine my wife Karen, who normally finds him “sexy”, finding anything redeeming in his look in this film. But he’s predictably solid, as is Chris Elliott as another scumbag (what he does best). But the Farrelly Brothers, known for punching up the gross humor in a movie, go overboard. WAY overboard. As we’ve seen lately as films try to one-up each other, gross isn’t necessarily funny, and often in this film, gross is so prevalent, it overshadows the Brothers’ attempts at human emotion between Bill Murray and his daughter. So, the seeds of a great movie are there, but it just ends up being...”clever”.
PLANET OF THE APES (*) - Not clever in the least. In fact, this is the most empty blockbuster to come along in a long time. In the past, most Tim Burton movies succeed because of his visual signature. “Sleepy Hollow” was not the story Washington Irving wrote years ago. It changed ALOT when it became the film with Johnny Depp and Christina Ricci. What made it entertaining? Burton’s fascinating creation of the headless horseman. The swirling leaves, the loud thumping of the horse’s hooves, the maniacal speed with which he dispensed a beheading was a masterpiece. Where in the name of Dr. Zaius was that STYLE here? “Planet of the Apes” could’ve been directed by any shnook by the looks of it. An absolutely FLAT adventure with no imagination. All attempts of the script to be ‘funny’ crashed and burned. Paul Giamatti’s, oh, I don’t know, stereotypical Jew ape was LAME, and Mark Wahlberg, the great Mark Wahlberg, was totally joyless, scowling as if he got tricked into making this movie. Estella Warren was a waste of time, I wish I’d stop seeing her in magazines as a reward for her bogus performance. And what’s with that relationship, anyway? Wahlberg arrives, the female eyeballs him. Then Helena Bonham Carter’s (shame on you) ape eyes him and the female gets jealous. Then Warren eyeballs him and the ape gets jealous. Then the ape eyes him again and Warren gets jealous. Did I miss the scene where Wahlberg’s character was interesting enough for ANYONE to give a rat’s ass? I didn’t care about him, why should a British ape?!?!! This movie sucked, and it had an ending you had to justify with your own, made-up reasons. That’s totally unfair.
CAPTAIN CORELLI’S MANDOLIN (*1/2) - Yes, it’s possible for one performance to ruin an entire film. Nicolas Cage, yes, the same guy who was so GOOD in “Raising Arizona”, “Moonstruck” and “Birdy” ABSOLUTELY BLOWS in this film. His performance is HORRID. UGH. I mean, isn’t he Italian? He’s a Coppola, and his Italian accent is wretched. Then again, Penelope Cruz’ whiny Greek woman is pathetic, too. She just simply thinks she can get away with NO dialect. NONE! So, she’s basically Spanish/Greek. Weak. And John Hurt is British the whole time. What’s going on with Greece? Cage plays an Italian soldier when Italy was occupying Greece. He meets Cruz’ nurse character and the love story is so not believable. I bought Michael Jackson and Lisa Marie Presley more than Cage/Cruz. So, the movie winds through a series of awkward wartime scenarios, and even an earthquake, but fails to tug the heartstrings because it’s so overwrought. There is one massacre scene that’s jolting, but it seems out of place in a movie so sappy. Christian Bale is excellent as the supposed “bad guy” of the love story, but I felt for him more than anyone else in the film.
JAY AND SILENT BOB STRIKE BACK (***) - Now, here’s a case where one performance MADE a movie. I don’t think I’ve ever seen a character in the movies before quite like Jason Mewes’ Jay. I don’t think there’s anyone else in the movies whose EVERY LINE is funny. EVERY WORD HE SAYS is funny! Now, you know what you’re gonna get if a whole movie is based on the two goofs featured in Kevin Smith’s previous films, so the least Smith can do is deliver. Well, he does, in a big way. Smith’s never been the world’s greatest filmmaker, but he’s always been funny. That’s apparent again, as “Jay and Silent Bob” gets a little sloppy towards the end, but always remains hilarious. The last third of the film is FILLED with great cameos and jabs at Hollywood, including outrageous bits by Ben Affleck and Matt Damon, plus Mark Hamill, and Jason Biggs uttering one of my favorite lines by calling James Van Der Beek’s show “Dawson’s Crack”. Plus, I joined the Will Ferrel fan club with this film. He’s always been pretty funny, but mainly “the guy who screams” the way SNL pidgeon-holes him. In this film, he’s a great supporting comedy player.
THE CURSE OF THE JADE SCORPION (**1/2) - A few modifications and this could get a straight three stars. But, Woody Allen still wants us to believe that he could bed the likes of Helen Hunt and Charlize Theron. Uh, no. Is he still funny? Allen and Hunt trade jibes worthy of a modern-day Cary Grant/Rosalind Russell. The plot is a whimsical flurry of misunderstandings and robberies revolving around a visit to a hypnotist. It’s always intriguing and you want to know how Allen’s character is going to get out of his mess. But, a scene where Theron comes on to him for no reason just seems odd, harsher critics might call it vain, and a forced happy ending seems unsettling. Allen even seemed unbelievable in a few of his scenes. It may be time to just stick to the writing and directing if the film is a romance at heart. I’m sure he can find that fine line between this and “Celebrity”, where he basically directed Kenneth Branagh to do a Woody Allen impersonation. I have a feeling he saw how HOT Theron was in that film and wanted her to come on to him, too. Hell, that’s what I’d do...
RUSH HOUR 2 (**1/2) - I read somewhere that Chris Tucker was so annoying in this movie, that it was impossible for the critic to recommend the film. The good news is that he doesn’t reach the supreme annoyance he achieved in “The Fifth Element”. The bad news is that he’s still rather obnoxious. It seems that he’s trying to exude that Eddie Murphy cool from “Beverly Hills Cop”, but that’s just the difference. Eddie wasn’t IN YOUR FACE, he was cool. Tucker does everything wrong that you’d want from a movie hero, which is a shame. And that doesn’t mean he’s doing everything right as a movie comedian. He’s managed to find this new plane where he’s always on screen, but rarely succeeding at entertaining me in any fashion. The film itself moves from the US to Hong Kong to pair up Tucker and Jackie Chan, but it’s pretty hollow, and, short of a few interesting lines or scenes, amounts to alot of sound and fury, signifying nothing. But, Chan, oh that crazy Jackie. When he unleashes the physical mastery he’s known for, the film’s action sequences soar. Alas, he’s not allowed enough time to fly.
O (***) - I’m admittedly not the biggest fan of teen movies. And teens doing Shakespeare seems like a pretentious load of muck. But “O” has some really good acting and directing that save what, on paper, seems like it could be treacherous. Josh Hartnett, awful in “Pearl Harbor”, is very good as the Iago-type in this Othello-in-high-school story. I hadn’t seen Julia Stiles before, and wondered what the hype was, and she delivered, too. In fact, Mekhi Phifer put in a good interpretation of a sorrowful Othello. Most impressive, to me, was the fact that I know the story of Othello, and I was STILL in suspense towards the end. The film still kept me caught up in the lives of it’s characters, even though I knew their fate. Director Tim Blake Nelson (an actor in “O Brother, Where Art Thou?”) loves his symbolism. There’s a LOT of it hidden in the frames of this film, from Os to doves to shadows to boxing characters in with walls and doorways. It’s never overkill, however, and he has the balls to drive home a movie about teens killing each other in these oh-so-sensitive times with grandly staged drama.
THE DEEP END (**) - When “O” came out, it was listed with this film and a few others on the finally-the-good-movies-of-the-summer-are-coming-out list. Well, I don’t see the attraction. To me, it remains as just another reason not to have children. Tilda Swinton (of “Orlando” - blecch) plays a mom trying to cover up the bad deeds of her son. The kid, however, never seems redeeming enough to be worth the effort. Another alert here for one of the worst performances of the year: Raymond Barry, a character actor I’ve seen before, but couldn’t tell you where, shows up as Swinton’s father. God, he’s awful. Cornball to the max. Goran Visnjic of “ER” has an easy-going charm, but the film never enthralled. Not a pathetic effort, the technical aspects are good, the Nevada lakes and hills look beautiful, but not an engrossing one, either.
TRAINING DAY (***) - Two lead performances propel this crooked-cop drama out of the norm the genre is used to. First of all, when you see all the junk the characters get involved in, it’s hardcore to remember it all happened in one day. I don’t know any actor who so successfully injects his characters with more charisma than Denzel Washington. My wife has always referred to Ethan Hawke as “the guy who lives under the ‘L’ tracks”, meaning he never looks showered or non-ratty. Even she liked him in this. It is Hawke’s first attempt at a cops-and-guns flick, and he pulls it off with the right balance of “gee-whiz! I’m a rookie” and tough young cop. As for the plot, all I can say is I can’t believe that Afghanistan pushed the Russians out of their country if the Russians have a mafia as bad-ass as the ones who cameo in this film. That aside, there are major coincidences that you just have to accept, but they come when the script and director aren’t afraid to put the main characters in deeper and deeper trouble. Following them down this path is always interesting and dark. But, like I said, when Denzel is on, I’ll follow him anywhere.
ROCK STAR (***) - Another star I usually fall for in any situation is Mark Wahlberg. The guy can be cheesus emeritus and GET AWAY WITH IT. He’s got pounds of hair band cheese oozing out of every pore in this film, another film that benefits highly from the involvement of it’s star. Brad Pitt wouldn’t have been as fun, Adam Sandler would’ve been too damn goofy, but Wahlberg can embrace an era as silly as the glam rock heyday and carry the film. And god bless this film for waking Wahlberg out of his “Planet of the Apes” funk. He screams, gyrates, poses and does it all, and it’s a riot. Director Stephen Herek manages to tell the story without mocking the topic. Yet, you snicker along with every “You wanna rock?” yelled at a crowd of adoring fans. We’ve seen most of it before: manic schedules, drugs, women, neglected girlfriends, buses and limos, but the film really enjoys the period of time it’s recreating, and I did, too.
HEARTS IN ATLANTIS (**) - Certainly a less than stellar outing for Stephen King. Normally, anything with Anthony Hopkins is worth looking at, but this story seems horribly underwritten. With the recent success of “The Shawshank Redemption” and “The Green Mile”, which had non-King themes like ‘love’ and ‘compassion’, it seems that he wanted to write a story with those themes in mind. Well, he should go back to themes like ‘blood’, ‘terror’ and ‘monsters’. This sunlit tale of a young boy in the fifties really doesn’t have much to say. Something about psychics and the government that I waited and waited to be explored fully with no luck. So, there’s not much left explored except a bad “Wonder Years” episode. The child actors in this film are quite good, but none of the actors are involved in a story written well enough to care about.
MULHOLLAND DR. (**1/2) - Normally, I’ll go with David Lynch wherever he wants to go. But holy Jesus he went WAY off the deep end with this kook-job of a movie. It’s filled with wonderful, legendary Lynchian scenes. One character has an audition for a movie that turns into a captivating moment. Two mobsters stage a bizarre demand to a producer to hire a certain actress for a film and the result has power and humor. But the scenes that work don’t add up to a satisfying whole. It has one of those endings that you eventually find out what happened...LATER. The result of all the over-examining of the film’s themes that you have to do is not worth the effort. The lead women (who engage in very sensual sex acts, thank you, David) are both great, especially Naomi Watts, as a bright-eyed actress just arriving in LA. This character is what Lynch loves to do best. She’s the same as Laura Palmer, Laura Dern’s character in “Blue Velvet”, etc. And I’d be curious to see what he had planned for her over the course of a year, as this film was originally intended as a pilot for ABC. But I was left with so many questions when the film was over, I’d need another 30 movies or so to make it all make sense.
LIFE AS A HOUSE (***1/2) - One of the more involving films of the year. Right at the top, I’m going to mention it’s faults, and they’re inherent. First up, there’s alot of extraneous stuff going on in this film that we care alot less about than the main relationships. Dealing with them less would focus more time on the film’s best assests, it’s lead actors. Director Irwin Winkler doesn’t really have a style. He just kinds puts it all out there and, um, ‘what do you think?’. This can lead to melodrama and schmaltz as seen in his previous films “Guilty By Suspicion” and “At First Sight”. “Life as a House”’s subject matter lends itself to schmaltz, and Winkler falls into the trap of giving it up. HOWEVER - I fell for it. I fell for most of this film because of the strong performances. Kevin Kline is usually a lock, and again he is rock solid. He can find humor, levels, sympathy, power and weakness in the same character. I’ve always liked him and I liked him here. But, here is the GREAT news about this film. I saw a preview screening of it. Knew nothing about it. It wasn’t until after the film was over did it hit me that I’d been watching Hayden Christiansen play Kline’s son. And this is the BEST news the “Star Wars” franchise could get. He is awesome! Christiansen will be playing Anakin in “Attack of the 50 Ft. Clones” next summer. And, after two awful performances by cartoon characters Jar-Jar Binks and Jake Lloyd, the next film needs a good actor to come in and get the job done. I’d be shocked if Christiansen fails to deliver. He was very powerful in “Life as a House” and held his own with Kline. Absolutely believable and absolutely impressive. As for the other cast members, they do the job, but some characters are irrelevant. This film is grounded in Kline and Christiansen, and when they’re asked to step to the plate, it’s good stuff.
CRAZY/BEAUTIFUL (*) - I’ve entirely forgotten this movie already, while images of “Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back” still linger. I have to see “The Virgin Suicides” apparently, because every time I say Kirsten Dunst does nothing for me and she’ll make ANY movie put in front of her, I’m told to see that. Well, once again, I’m watching Dunst in a “teen romance” movie, and it’s just bland, bland, bland. The idea’s interesting with a role reversal (the white girl’s bad, the hispanic boy is a model teen), but the whole experience seemed a little trite with the overbearing father, the racial tension, the jealous friends, etc., etc. A few scenes, when the characters get really personal, strike a chord, but overall it failed to draw me in. Newcomer Jay Hernandez is pretty good, playing a character surrounded by a bunch of teens offering up a good argument for birth control.
AMELIE (****) - I believe the director of this film, Jean-Pierre Jeunet, directed “Delicatessen” and “City of Lost Children”. If so, they’ve just jumped to the TOP of my DVD rental list. “Amelie” is a fascinating, fascinating way to tell a simple, honest love story. This movie seems to have the quirkiest characters of the year in it. But unlike “Chocolat” or “U-Turn”, movies that seem to have quirky characters just cause ‘isn’t it cool to have quirky characters in your movie?’, “Amelie”’s main strength is in the playfulness of it’s director, editor and screenwriter. This movie zips along with a cheerfulness and joy worn right out on it’s sleeve. Every character seems bizarre because the introductions, thoughts and desires of the characters are explored in such intesting ways. Example: The plot is basically a woman’s folly in making good things happen for other people causes her to ignore her own happiness. At one point, she is to meet a man for dinner. She thinks he is A) late or B) captured in a robbery attempt. This thought B leads to a glorious montage sequences that lasts about two minutes where she imagines his capture, torture, abandonment in an Afghan mountain,etc., etc. Is she especially quirky? Well, this much is for sure, with storytelling like that, the filmmaker is downright daffy, enjoying every minute of his main character’s tale. I liked it equally as much.
THE MAN WHO WASN’T THERE (***1/2) - I’ll admit a bit of bias here that I LOVE the Coen brothers, and they can do little wrong with me. Even plotless movies they’ve made like “The Big Lebowski” manage to be entertaining because of their completely unique style. And I find them to be unique within the parameters of the genre they’re operating in. So, just as they’ve made unique comedies and gangster movies, here they give the film noir genre a jolt of refreshment. The film reminds me of “A Simple Plan” in the recent spate of movies involving characters making really bad decisions and dealing with the consequences. The film is narrated by Billy Bob Thornton’s character, who, in a wonderful twist, says the least within the story. His performance throughout is one of the year’s best, and he looks perfect for the part. James Gandolfini and Frances McDormand are also strong in their roles. The Coen’s continue to get fantastic work out of their cinematographer Roger Deakins. His memorable pushing-the-limits-of-white-balance work in “Fargo” and lush photography of “O Brother, Where Art Thou?” are matched by wonderful work with shadows and smoke in this black and white effort. The Coens are so specific in their work, it seems they haven’t missed a detail again, and they tell a very engaging story about characters who just get deeper and deeper in trouble as we get more and more engrossed in their tale.
K-PAX (**1/2) - I MAY TALK A BIT TOO MUCH ABOUT THE ENDING OF THIS MOVIE, JUST SO YOU KNOW. I’ve heard wildly varying opinions on the work of Jeff Bridges over the years. Many find him boring or passive. I’ll say at the top of this review that I’m a big fan. From “Fearless” to his highly underrated work in “The Fabulous Baker Boys” (a highly underrated MOVIE), I’ve always liked him, and I think his and Kevin Spacey’s work in “K-PAX” elevate the film above standard crazy-guy fare. However, the script isn’t worthy of all their efforts, so their work can take the film only so far. A man (Spacey) claims to be from the planet “K-PAX”, is he crazy or an alien? That’s the premise, but an idea like that lends itself to a number of philosopical and scientific questions, many asked by the pessimistic characters in the movie who doubt Spacey’s an alien. However, as Spacey’s character approaches hurdles in his quest to be believed (he is asked to point out his planet at a planetarium, he talks to a dog), I don’t think the film makes it clear one way or another in these scenes, but we’re left with an confusing conclusion as well. My wife Karen liked that ambivalence, There were loose ends that I thought needed tying up. Not that I need a neat package, I mean, one of my favorite movies of all time is “Birdy”, but in this case, I wanted more.
IRIS (**) - Judi Dench is in a movie, it must be awards season. One of my secret lust muffins is Kate Winslet. I don’t know, there’s something trashy about her that I enjoy. She’s naked quite alot in this film, and is even spotted engaging in sex. A high point in the film! Unfortunately, the only one. It’s the story of an aging writer of highly cerebral works who develops some sort of mental disorder that prevents her from working and damages her personal life. I think the word “Alzheimer” is uttered once. Jim Broadbent, great in “Bullets Over Broadway” and “Moulin Rouge” plays her confused and frustrated husband. His is the best performance in the film. But the biggest problem the film has is that we never REALLY get to know Iris before she succumbs to her disorder. This certainly didn’t make me care about her enough to carry me through the whole story. The flashbacks with Kate as a young Judi don’t enlighten enough either. Hugh Bonneville does a tremendous job as a young Jim Broadbent, but it’s all for naught as in the flashbacks it turns out that I don’t LIKE her character, let alone know enough about her. I found out later that the film is based on a book written from the husband’s point of view. But the film abandons this point of view entirely and instead tells straight narrative. I think they missed an opportunity to give the movie a stronger emotional core.
HARRY POTTER AND THE SORCERER’S STONE (***) - I highly recommend this movie! I didn’t know a THING about the books walking into this and wisely avoided all previews (as we all should, as well as burn the post houses who edit them together to the ground), and I was surprised. First of all, there’s nothing worse in this world than watching children perform. UGH. So, a movie with three children as the main character’s worried me. Well, here are two things that surprised me:
1. With children anchoring the film, I thought for sure they’d aim the filmmaking at kids. I kept waiting for the film to be dumb. It never stooped to stupid, Binks-ish tricks to keep everyone’s attention. When Spielberg made “Raiders of the Lost Ark”, children went. Why? ‘Cause it was GREAT! Hell, EVERYONE went!! IT WAS GREAT. Just make a great movie, and they’ll go. Make a great kid’s movie and not everyone will go. And everyone’s going to “Harry Potter” because it’s a shrewd and sharp adult adventure that’s wide-eyed enough for kids, and it will be provocative for them, not catered for them.
2. I waited and waited for the Emma Watson character to be annoying. As soon as she came on the scene and knew everything about witchery, I saw the groundwork of a bratty kid being laid. Yet, throughout, all three of the leads remained likeable.
As soon as Chris Colombus got involved, I feared the worst. Could the “Goonies” and “Home Alone” director make this movie for all audiences? From what I’m told, he balanced the tone just as the book did. He had two things helping him. Author J.K. Rowling was involved during the entire production, and the supporting cast was flawless. Can you beat having Richard Harris, Robbie Coltrane, Maggie Smith and Alan Rickman in your film? I found the ending to be a blend of pleasure and disappointment. The plot twists in the resolution are good, but some characters act in ways that don’t make sense. Those ways are explained at the very end and we’re just supposed to go “Oh, I see”, when we never knew anything about it before. The Quidditch scene (a soccer/Rollerball type game played on broomsticks) is one of THE scenes of the year, at least as entertaining as a pod race. Only a cameo by Sandpeople could’ve improved it. A brief comment on the CGI effects. I said in my “Mummy Returns” review that you can’t do people yet. People created by CGI effects still look rubbery and smooth. Well, unfortunately, that’s still the case in “Harry Potter”. Fortunately, that effect is only used on characters who are in the distance or moving quickly atop a CGI-created creature. But it’s still distracting, any time you can get real people to do stunts, you’re better off. The film is filled with magic and thank god for a blockbuster that earns it’s status. The summer movies that opened big and died horrible deaths soon after should learn a thing or two from the boy wizard.
THE ROYAL TENENBAUMS (****) - One of the best films of the year that hits on all aspects - acting (a triumph), writing, directing, costumes, art direction, cinematography. Hear me now, and I’m sure I said it before: Gene Hackman is one of the greatest actors of the last forty years. His performance in “Tenebaums” is impeccable. I can’t tell you how enjoyable it was to watch him play Royal Tenenbaum. He finds the humor in everything, and he’s a joy to watch. And his supporting cast is a no-brainer - Stiller is great, Paltrow is better here than in her last five films, Huston is solid, Glover is fantastic, Murray is wonderfully nebbeshy, and Luke Wilson gives the performance of his career thus far. This film takes place in modern day, but the costumes and NY City sets ring of the seventies, not ironic ‘cause the Tenenbaums themselves have a hard time dealing with their past. The opening is something the makers of “Iris” need to watch to learn how to introduce all of the characters of a story in a highly energized and funny way. It’s a great ride following the Tenebaums through their hardships on the road to redemption. And whether they find it or not, every character is more interesting than those in at least a hundred other movies this year.
LORD OF THE RINGS - THE FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING (***) - A mixed bag or pleasures. First of all, don’t miss this movie. It has more money shots than “Edward Penishands”, but can Peter Jackson direct actors? Here’s another fantasy classic that I don’t really know anything about. I remember seeing the Ralph Bakshi cartoon of “The Hobbit” YEARS ago. That’s about it, so I was set up for a real ride. The first hour of this film is the finest. The story is set up with narration/montage. (This worked for “Tenenbaums”, too) Basically, you get the idea of the background of the story you’re about to watch without confusion, and the intro is filled with wonderful, magical images of long-ago battles and demons. Then we see the wizard Gandalf arrive at the Hobbit shire. This entire sequence is magical, from Gandalf’s fantastic presence to an eye-popping fireworks display. Also fierce in their creation are the Ring Wraiths, dark, dark creatures in pursuit of a magical ring. These supernatural beings are gloriously imagined, with piercing shrieks, shadowy visages accompanied by thumping sound effects. Also impressive is the introduction of Aragorn, a warrior set to protect Frodo Baggins on his journey to protect a fabled ring that, if it fell into the wrong hands, could bring doom to the world. Aragorn is a stoic fighter with furious fighting skills (there is one scene where Frodo, in an altered state, watches Aragorn fight the Wraiths that is particularly enrapturing). As played by Viggo Mortensen, Aragorn is one of the more empathetic humans in the story. After this first hour of very effective personal scenes, it seems that Jackson wanted to include EVERYTHING from the novel, and some of the more expansive scenes get away from him. Again, I haven’t read the books, but the movie covers ALOT of ground. The problem with that is as cool as the new lands and creatures they encounter are, we don’t seem to get alot of time with them, and Jackson goes into “let’s move it along, people” mode. There’s a ton of stuff in this film, but I thought it could’ve been whittled down by about 15 or 20 minutes. Now, Jackson isn’t as bad at directing actors as George Lucas and Michael Bay, but his human interaction scenes (and by “human” I mean elves, dwarves, hobbits, humans and wizards played by humans) are not as strong as his imagination in scenes more fantastical. The dramatic scenes aren’t an across the board failure, but they provide some stutter-steps in a film with a decent gallop to it. There are other directorial choices that seem to add length to a film that could stand to be more slender. Technically, there is some blow-you-away shit in this movie, but the occasional scene with CGI people comes along, and I had the same response to it I did in “Harry Potter”. There is always lamenting among the sci-fi crowd that there are no good fantasy films. They can’t really cop to movies like “Legend” and “The Dark Crystal” as the BEST in their genre. The best in recent years, to me, is “The Adventures of Baron Munchausen”, and Peter Jackson’s visionary style often reminds me of Terry Gilliam. I think “The Fellowship of the Ring” is a worthwhile film for fantasy fans to check out to get their fix.
I would LOVE your responses.
Please bring ‘em on.
- Paul