This a big-ass review page. So I won’t waste time with a big-ass opening.
THE BOURNE IDENTITY (***) - Matt Damon’s spy thriller is another in an unusually long line of smart movies for adults that came out in summer 2002. No doubt Robert Ludlum’s source material promises a good film and the director, star and everyone involved know what they’ve got to do to create a good film. And they don’t miss a beat. Damon both pulls off a solid performance and regains a position as a box office draw. It seemed like he would leave the money-making to his buddy Ben, and concentrate on good films that don’t make money (see “Rounders”). Now, he’s found both quality and broad appeal. Director Doug Liman kept his focus, it seems, on “the classic look”. With its European locations and hand-to-hand combat (instead of extended gunplay), Liman seems to be channeling William Friedkin or someone from the ‘60s and ‘70s spy flicks normally populated by Michael Caine of Redford. The result is a solid, suspenseful story that follows one man’s attempt to recover his identity, after waking up in the ocean with amnesia. This spy story doesn’t jump locations quite as free-wheelingly as a Clancy movie, so it helps to have Damon, a good actor, anchoring the whole thing. He’s believable, strong and entirely watchable. Franka Potente is also good as a hesitant helper of Damon’s who quickly falls for him. There are a few moments where I questioned character choices or plausibility, but overall it’s a fun ride and worthy of a franchise.
ONE HOUR PHOTO (***1/2) - If you’ve heard that Robin Williams is excellent in this film, you’ve heard correctly. The good news is that the film surrounding Williams is great, too. This story of a film developer at the local pharmacy who collects photos of his favorite family is genuinely creepy. Director Mark Romanek has achieved Coen Brothers-like quality work out of his filmmakers. Especially the stale environment of the SavMart where Williams’ character Sy works. Practically whited-out by the harsh flourescent lights, the SavMart seems to put Sy under the same scrutinization he gives his subjects when examining their negatives. “One Hour Photo” is a one-man show, and Williams is up to the task. There’s always been something about Williams that says ‘peel here to reveal dark side underneath’ and it’s fully tapped. His nervousness is felt in every detail. The cinematography is Oscar-worthy, framing a lost Sy in the washed-out banality of suburbia. The ending is particularly interesting (it has frustrated some). In the end, I didn’t know whether to cheer on his vigilante ass, go vigilante ON his ass, or just read him a bedtime story...
SIGNS (***) - Flaws, flaws, flaws. OK, there were many flaws in M. Night Shyamalan’s crop cirles and aliens thriller (SEE MARK & ROB’S REVIEWS IN THE “COMMENTS” SECTION BELOW FOR ALL THE DETAILS IN DETAILED DETAIL AS FAR AS FLAWS GO). However, I am continually won over by the power of Shyamalan’s filmmaking. “The Sixth Sense” was brilliant and I am SURE he has a masterpiece in him. As you can guess, “Signs” ain’t it, but it has moments of standout genius coupled with troubling inconsistencies. Let’s first focus ont he positive. I am a BIG fan of Shyamalan’s direction. He’s constantly making the unobvious (and more exciting) choice for important scenes. Example - Mel Gibson and Joaquin Phoenix struggle with a ‘visitor’ who has broken into their cellar. The scene shows a flashlight on the ground as dust is kicked up and feet scuffle by. The scene maintains its sense of adventure and suspense through the soundtrack, and result is sensational. He also shoots the alien creatures in reflection ALOT, another choice that keeps Shyamalan’s work cookie-cutter free. And overall he does a great job of showing a claustrophobic, isolated view of a scary world phenomenon. “Signs” also has a stronger sense of humor than Shyamalan’s previous flicks. His is a dark and twisted world view, but scenes of Mel Gibson’s family putting tin foil on their heads to block alien mind probes are a riot. And is there any more of a sure thing in Hollywood than Mel Gibson? He is constantly getting himself involved in the more risky Hollywood blockbusters. He remains one of the more emotionally powerful leading men, whether he’s William Wallace or Martin Riggs. And his scenes with his dying wife and his struggles with faith had me riveted during “Signs”. Phoenix is good as well, and following great turns in “To Die For”, “Quills”, “Gladiator” and “U-Turn”, I can’t remember his brother’s film work being this solid for so long. Now, about that script...that’s going to involve alot of talk about important plot details that will reveal too much if you haven’t seen the film. Read on with caution. It's getting to be a sure thing that all sci-fi will have flaws in the script. Even "Minority Report", which I GUSHED over, had errors (have I discussed the fact that Cruise could NOT have gotten back into Pre-Crime HQ with his own eyeball in a bag, 'cause his own eye scan would've either been denied or set off an alarm?). As for the water thing (even more than the ability to escape from a pantry), a species traveling this far should realize that the people that populate the planet are 80% WATER!! I wanted to argue that maybe they just wanted to kill us, but that theory dies when they're face to face with the alien, and he's trying to inject Gibson's son with "something". Could've killed him, but didn't. So, the aliens didn't do their research. The entire subplot with Gibson's wife pinned against the car had me BAWLING LIKE A FOOL. The slow reveal of Shymalan's character’s identity was good as well. Alot of Shyamalan's writing needed tightening. I thought "swing away" was simply a response to Phoenix's story about his failed hitting career. Gibson might've even made it up to make his brother feel good. When it tied into the whole ending, I thought that was goofy. Also, I wish Gibson didn't rediscover his faith. That was a bummer. I have to admit that I don't know much about the actual UFO accounts in this world, but I can see where that'd upset those who would expect research. (Mark’s review in the “Comments” section are very insightful). Naturally, this movie has spawned specials on Discovery, The History Channel, etc. all about the crop circle phenomenon, and those specials have been fascinating. But I disagree with anyone who thinks he should've made the movie with all crop circle theories in mind, including the hoaxes. If "Signs" didn't deliver aliens, I would've been pissed. It's just that the delivery was uneven. So, anyway, I agree that it was not the movie it could've been, but I'm glad that a movie that's trying is making more money than "Pluto Nash".
SIMONE (**1/2) - It seems like the elements are in place in “Simone” for a top notch satire. Yet I can’t put my finger on why it doesn’t work. It’s alot of fun watching Pacino play for laughs (it’s been a while), and the idea of actors being replaced with CGI effects is certainly topical. Yet like “Enough”, the writing here seems to just get through the story, without digging too deep or embellishing excessively. Whereas a rich script like “One Hour Photo” or “Auto Focus” can make for a more engrossing movie. So, the idea’s good, but the execution is underdeveloped. There’s even a scene at the top of “Simone” with Pacino and Catherine Keener that has all the character’s backstory explained in one conversation. It’s just an example of the rush the whole movie moves with, offering stilted dialogue in place of living in these character’s skins. Winona Ryder is awful. But she doesn’t have to worry about making the sequel when she’s doing time, ‘cause there won’t be one.
THE MAN FROM ELYSIAN FIELDS (*) - Mick Jagger as a pimp daddy? Where do I sign?! There is much to enjoy, watching Jagger work his magic as a smooth operator, but he and Andy Garcia are lost in a murky script. What do I mean by murky? Missing details and pointless scenes mostly. Example, as fun as Jagger’s presence is, he’s horribly underdeveloped. He has A SCENE or two to get an idea of how tough and conflicted his life is, but that’s it. Either develop it or don’t mention it. I want to see Andy Garcia in “The Regis Philbin Story” just so I can see if he’s capable of not being so damn gloomy all the time. His character resorts to being a gigolo in an act of desperation, but I can’t imagine him EVER seeming like he’s enjoying being in the movie. You know what, I’ll extend that to his career. I don’t see him acting non-sluggish in anything since “The Godfather, Part III”. The late James Coburn shows up in a plot that’s downright goofy, uncomfortable and just doesn’t work. The whole male gigolo story could go two different ways - “American Gigolo” or “Deuce Bigalow”. “Elysian Fields”, however, works as neither drama or comedy. The characters make so many stupid decisions, I couldn’t root for romance, and it’s just too stuffy for laughs. We can still cross our fingers that Jagger will make “Freejack 2”!
MOONLIGHT MILE (**1/2) - Great performances can’t quite keep this dour drama from slogging around in its own depression. Jake Gyllenhall plays a young man dealing with a death in the family (the reveal of who the characters are in relation to each other is worth not spoiling it here). I wish Gyllenhall was one of the great performances, but it seems like alot of young actors do so little with their characters (perhaps to show their detachedness) that they do nothing at all. Gyllenhall kind of wallows around and he never really drew me in. The writing makes his character so indecisive that I got tired of waiting around for SOMETHING to make me care. The story is good, but the execution is lackluster. The truer studies in human nature are in Dustin Hoffman and Susan Sarandon’s performances. Hoffman is a brilliant study in grief, as we watch a man so lost after the loss of a loved one, that he doesn’t even leave himself time to mourn. He’s either busy working or busy talking, walking a fine line between paternal strength and denial. Sarandon’s character is a bit wiser and gets to play the more articulate version of grief, and she’s just right for that. Brad Silberling directed this story based on his own experiences, and the movie is great at depicting place and time, the production design is particularly good. However, despite a good look and some good actors, I just never got the evisceral feelings I needed from the characters. And, oh yeah, as always, Holly Hunter is hot.
MY BIG FAT GREEK WEDDING (***) - STILL in the top ten at the box office SIX MONTHS after it’s release, the biggest independent movie of all-time is worthy of its universal appeal. Nia Vardalos’ script is full of “Oh yeah, I’ve been there”-moments. It’s lightweight story is really an ugly duckling getting her due, but here’s an example of the execution winning the day. Vardalos’ script is filled with wonderful characters who pull off that much-desired feat of being over-the-top funny and undeniably real at the same time. The mother and father of the Greek family invoke real tears at the movie’s end. Vardalos herself is a great comic actress, and I wonder why her perky look and indelible charm haven’t been put to good use up to now. I could see her as the star of “While You Were Sleeping” or “Bridget Jones Diary”(dialect pending). John Corbett has got to be thanking GOD for her, as “Wedding” is the biggest thing he’s ever done after solid work for years on TV. It’s tough to criticize a movie that moves along at such a fun, likeable pace. It really is nothing but a good time, with, as I said, loads of empathy. Now, why is Joey Fatone in this movie again?
PUNCH DRUNK LOVE (****) - The strangest romance I’ve ever seen. The best news about this movie is it’s confirmation that Paul Thomas Anderson is a filmmaker of unique talent. His thumbprint is all over this film and if you love him (“Boogie Nights”, “Magnolia” are big favorites of mine), you love it. Even as he fashions an old-school romance for Adam Sandler’s perennial loser Barry, he can’t help but give in to the demons that populate all his films - twisted sex, surprising violence and the bizarre and unexplained. The risks in including these things is part of “Punch Drunk Love”’s success. This film stands out from every other love story I’ve ever seen. The creation of Barry as a helpless loser in love and work is wonderfully developed with overbearing sisters, a vapid, stale job and the admission of bouts with depression and crying. He gets so lonely that he enlists the services of a phone sex operator. This sends him down the wackiest series of criminal exploits you will see this year. Anderson can include all the oddities Charlie Kaufman and David Lynch can put in their films, but he backs them with raw emotional power and that’s the difference between masturbating and creating a real masterpiece. There seems to be a real love of romance underlying in this film that says ‘no matter how weird things get, love will prevail’. This reverence for love can be seen in the splashes of color that grace the screen and the optimistic/romantic score. Anderson enlists sure-things Phillip Seymour Hoffman and Luis Guzman in supporting roles, but the movie belongs to Sandler, who has the chops for more developed characters than the goofballs he normally plays. When playing Mr. Deeds or Happy Gilmore, you can tell Sandler doesn’t give a shit about what he’s up to. The good news is when he does care, the results are quite good. His most successful film (in my opinion) up to now was “The Wedding Singer”, when he played a lovable loser. “Punch Drunk Love” proves that when he plays a character you can really, really root for, you’re in for a good ride.
FRIDA (**) - I know little about Frida Kahlo. No, I mean now, after I’ve seen the movie. Truth is, I sat through the biopic about this acclaimed author, and left wondering why it was made. It seemed, like Forrest Gump, she was always around when interesting world events and people were going on, but was she really that inspiring that you make a movie about her? She did survive a crippling accident as a child to go on and become a famed painter. But the movie never portrayed her as having that aforementioned fame. It seemed like she was always in the shadow of fame (mostly Diego Rivera’s), and oh, yeah, she painted, too. Salma Hayek is super-hot except for the catepillar-eyebrow she sports during the film. This makes for some great nudity and lesbian scenes. As for her performance, she does a fine job in making me forget that up to now I didn’t believe she could carry a flim. Equally, or even more impressive is the actress who plays Frida as a young girl. She is spirited and edgy. The movie shares these same qualities, but not always as successfully. When I think of director Julie Taymor, I think of puppetry and models, two things that distinguished her acclaimed production of “The Lion King”. So, the question is, does she have to use them in everything? Apparently, yes, but the effect is jarring, not the good way, but the take-you-out-of-the-hard-work-the-actors-are-doing way. I mean, some of the obligatory puppetry in this film is just odd. One effect that does work is the life-size re-creation of Frida’s paintings. Frida will either imagine herself in her painting’s world, or physically see herself in it, and the production design is stunning. Frida does one of those stupid things where she allows her husband to fool around, and then she gets mad when he does. There’s little tolerance in my world for sympathy when characters make a dumb-assed move like that. But hey, SOMETHING had to happen to Frida, and it’s all bad. So are the paintings. Make that *1/2.
WHITE OLEANDER (**) - Drama, drama, drama. Who’ll stop the drama? Certainly not anyone involved with this project. Michelle Pfeiffer is particularly guilty of being too dramatic for her own good as an overbearing mom in this mother-daughter Oprah-fest. Robin Wright Penn and Alison Lohman are quite good, but I couldn’t help but feel a sense of let’s-throw-everything-in-the-book-at-this-poor-character going on in the script. I thought Oprah was a feminist? All her Book Club recommendations are stories of women living in and dealing with shit. The problem is that the main character doesn’t necessarily draw empathy with the decisions she makes. Don’t get me wrong, flaws are OK, it doesn’t have to be black and white, but it doesn’t seem like she wants her life any better than we do. Another major problem with the movie is the voice-over. Entertainment Weekly’s review said an interesting point - that too much voice-over in a movie is a sign that the director relies too much on the source material, and not enough on the medium of film That’s certainly an excellent point, but I would add that the voice-over here is just garbled. It’s a bunch of self-indulgent claptrap that no one would ever say. About two minutes into the movie, the main character was talking (in voice-over) about her mother and I had no idea what the hell she was really saying. It was a bunch of novel-voice, not teenager voice. Don’t bother.
AUTO FOCUS (***1/2) - I wasn’t really that familiar with the details of Bob Crane’s life. I just had the general idea that he was kinda twisted. “Kinda Twisted”, you say? Quick, call Paul Schrader! From movies like “Taxi Driver” and “Raging Bull”, where he served as screenwriter, to his directorial efforts like “Affliction”, Schrader is damn good at exploring the seedy dark side of his characters. Turns out there’s plenty to tell the world about Bob Crane. “Auto Focus” has the same kind of arc that “Boogie Nights” had - everything starts out idyllic and slowly plunges into darkness. Drugs brought down Dirk Diggler (and “Goodfellas”’ Henry Hill, who also had a seemingly idyllic beginning). What tarnishes Crane’s career and life is an addiction to sex, which he continually insists is just human nature. The rest of the world didn’t see it that way. Schrader and his production staff pull out all the stops to visually represent Crane’s descent from stardom. The photography turns from steady to hand-held, from colorful to washed-out, the score switches from cheery to gloom-and-doom and the performers are sharp throughout. Greg Kinnear is excellent at showing both Crane’s comedy stylings and his penchant for all things raunchy. His matter-of-fact-ness towards the things that shocked the rest of the world is well-played. Throw in the nuances and the nudity, and it’s a very daring performance. And Dafoe...oh, Dafoe, the GREAT Willem Dafoe. He’s built a body of work to the point where you know things can’t be good when he’s around. Yet he’s so likeable, even when he’s creepy. But as the ambiguous layers of his best-friend-of-Bob-Crane charcter are peeled away, Dafoe never misses an opportunity to impress in a richly bit of acting. Equally good are Rita Wilson and Maria Bello as the lost wives of Crane’s life. Wilson especially draws great sympathy as Crane’s first wife. Overall, this is a well-crafted movie that’s effective at creating place and time (it didn’t help Crane to be addicted to sex in the Swinging Early ‘70s), with classic scenes (the dual masturbation scene is one FOR THE AGES!) and never a dull moment.
FAR FROM HEAVEN (****) - I saw Douglas Sirk’s “Imitation of Life” in a film class in college. It’s on many critic’s lists of the great films, but I’ll be damned if I didn’t simply dismiss it as an over-the-top soap opera. Well, it turns out I was right. The overly dramatic, stylized presentation of the 1950s was a popular way for directors of the time to represent their era. Films like “Casablanca” and “Citizen Kane” had come and gone, proving that acting could be less stylized and more real, and stories could be told, not presented. Yet Sirk’s films resonated with an old-school bluster of melodrama and Acting with a capitol A. Todd Haynes’ brilliant “Far From Heaven” is best described by star Julianne Moore, who said (and I’m paraphrasing) that it’s not a film about the ‘50s, but a film about people from a ‘50s movie. Sirk’s style is intact, but Haynes has masterfully infused themes into the story that you’d never find in a Sirk film. So what happens if you peel away the smiley layers of the perfect Mr. and Mrs. 1950s? That’s explored to fantastic effect by Haynes and everyone involved. The production design is top notch, creating the postcard, technicolor world of near-perfection. It is lit with great attention to color (for example, blue is evil - EVIL, I SAY!). Elmer Bernstein has fashioned a score that is so PRESENT in dictating the events that are unfolding that it’s practically a character in the film. You know immediately from the sprawling credits and Bernstein’s score what you’re in for. Dennis Quaid gives an award-worthy performance (woohoo! Finally, some award cred for Dennis!). His character sets the wheels in motion for what ultimately turns Julianne Moore’s Pleasantville-esque life into a sad story. But fear not, every actor is having so much fun playing the style that their are many laughs to even out the experience. This is certainly one of the oddest and best films of the year. Go now. NOW, I SAY!
WEIGHT OF WATER (*) - Lame. My first comment after seeing this hokey story of a bunch of ‘literates’ exploring on old murder was “The dialogue in ‘Far From Heaven’ was more realistic.” And “Heaven” is SUPER-stylized. “Weight of Water” is FULL of “movie-people” conversations that real people would never have. And I don’t care how cultured, educated or worldly-wise these people are, their dialogue was bogus. And if I’m wrong, then they’re the LAST people I want to see populating a movie. Catherine McCormack plays the way-too-obsessed-with-the-old-murder character. Didn’t buy it. I wouldn’t believe that she’d wake her husband up in the middle of the night to talk about a 120 year old murder if we hadn’t just cut away from a flashback of it. It reminded me of the stupifyingly bad film, “The Haunting”, in which Lili Taylor runs around crying “the children!”, worried, again, more about the dead people than others in the movie. And in “The Haunting” and “Weight of Water”, no other characters share the one crazy character’s obsession. They could give a shit. Well, same here. The best parts of the movies occur in flashblack, following the depressing life of an immigrant girl. Sarah Polley gives the best performance of the movie as that girl, saddled with an uncaring husband and overwhelming chores. But even her story gets needlessly murky towards the end. As for the other actors, apparently Elizabeth Hurley was enticed to make this film by the opportunity to play a giant whore (who does a really, REALLY dumb thing at the end that is UNEXPLAINED), and Sean Penn is and looks SUPER-BORED. The connections between the murder and current time are unconvincing and nonsensical, reaching a conclusion that carries with it a major “whatever”. It sucked, and I could go on.
8 MILE (***) - I’m gonna say right at the top that I don’t like hip-hop (with rap, I slant old school - P.E., ICE-T, RUN D.M.C.). However, I was won over by this Hip-Hop ‘Purple Rain’. Eminem, who previously appeared to me as a scrawny, foulmouthed little shit, plays his character Jimmy “Rabbitt” Smith as a Detroit slouch you can really enjoy watching. When Jimmy travels around Detroit in his beat up car, posse in tow, it can’t help but feel...real. Curtis Hanson’s dirty-fingers direction took me places I’ve never been, but instills in each scene a lived-in quality. Example, “8 Mile” has rapping duels where guys face off in dis contests set to a beat. But it never looks like some stagey, Hollywood convention. Instead, it looks llike Curtis Hanson was lucky to get his white ass in and out of there alive! I’m reminded of the great scene in “American History X” that takes place at a skinhead rally. Again, showing me something I’d otherwise never see. That’s where “8 Mile” succeeds. A little more floundering is Rabbitt’s relationship with an aspiring model played by the always trashy Britanny Murphy. Their sex scene is actually the best scene they have together. Her real importance to his journey is flawed to me. They never seemed to really click enough for me to buy the later conflict that she causes between him and a shot at a demo session. Eminem seems to move through it all with real street cred, pulling off emotional scenes with his mom (Kim Basinger) and high octane scenes with rival rappers. Through it all, there isn’t a whole lot of rapping by Eminem, making his best vocal stylizing at the end a real payoff. So now I know two things:
1. By working with top-notch talent, Eminem has joined the movie biz with guns blazing, carving out a riveting debut that buries the weak attempts of counterparts DMX and Ja Rule.
2. I’ll be OK if I never go to Detroit.
HARRY POTTER AND THE CHAMBER OF SECRETS (***) - Certainly as good as the first, this Harry Potter outing has magic in literally every scene. Blue pixies, giant spiders, man-eating snake creatures, flying cars, you name it, there’s more and more stuff in this sequel and it’s all good. There’s also more plot - LOTS OF IT - that made me pull out the notebook I haven’t used since “Back to the Future, Part II” to take notes. The prestige of the book series has afforded the films the luxury of getting the best British talent to climb aboard. And they’re all as equally good here as before - Robbie Coltrane, the GREAT Richard Harris, Maggie Smith and Kenneth Branagh - HILARIOUS as a foolish magician. The filmmakers also knew to pump up what we’ve seen already, and that makes for a faster and more dangerous Quidditch match that will be in competition for action scene of the year. We also have the joy of bypassing all the set up (who are these characters? What is Hogwart’s?) and get right to the action, and the special effects department did a flawless job. I’ve already praised the Quidditch match, and Dobby, a new, all CGI character is extremely well done, from his full-physical interaction with Harry to the believable texture of his clothing. Beates the mushy, rubbery aliens of “Attack of the Clones”. The flying car is fluid and graceful, match-cutting efx and real car shots seamlessly, the giant spiders look better than a movie full of Eight Legged Freaks, and each flash of a magic wand brings something new. Now, I want to make sure I get a special shout-out to Rupert Grint, who plays Ron Weasley. Daniel Radcliffe is all poise, comfortability and assuredness this time around as Harry. In great contrast is Grint, who makes the greatest faces at every scary encounter they have. The three leads have an easy-going repoire, but Grint stood out a bit this time ‘cause he just cracked me up. With smarts, high-quality production and a pant-load of fantastical adventure, I look forward to this franchise living a long life.
ADAPTATION (**1/2) - Whoa, this movie’s nuts. With the writer and director of “Being John Malkovich” re-uniting, there will be obvious comparison. Mine would be that both films start with an outrageous premise, but can’t quite keep the car on the tracks till the end of the film. “Malkovich”, I thought, burned out a little at the end. Ditto, “Adaptation”. Nicolas Cage stopped whoring around to put in a good performance(s) here where his old-school quirkiness was thankfully tapped again. Meryl Streep is good. Jesus, she’s ALWAYS good. ALWAYS. So now let’s address the script. I’ll admit, there’s a big connection (a gimmick) required by the viewer in the second half of the movie that I didn’t make. I’ll admit it. There was something going on I didn’t “get”. When it was explained to me later, it made me appreciate the film more. But, ENJOY it more? Not necessarily. It’s the story of screenwriter Charlie Kaufman’s real-life attempt to adapt a novel into a script. Kaufman’s imagination of himself is full of very funny dialogue (he has severe self-doubt), but many of the out-to-lunch plotlines get so out-to-lunch, I lost track of what the movie’s trying to do. It’s alot of funny stuff in a big mess.
DIE ANOTHER DAY (**1/2) - This is no doubt THE action movie of the year. But the great Bond tradition of bigger than big action this time around is not surrounded by the slickest supporting cast. The good news for Bond fans is that Pierce Brosnan is more comfortable than ever as 007. When he appears on the screen, he IS Bond. He is confident in the role, he is more aware of danger than previous Bond Roger Moore (Brosnan and Timothy Dalton have brought back the sense of real danger that Connery had and Moore lacked - Moore seemed to breeze through his movies without really being affected by the danger around him). The budget is big and the villians think big. That’s what I expect from the Bond villian - think big! Like, giant space laser big! And there’s other cool stuff, like DNA manipulation, a guy with diamonds embedded in his face, gadgets and gorgeous locations. What doesn’t work? Well, there’s been all sorts of talk about how the Bond franchise is getting a boost now because of Jinx, Halle Berry’s character (they’re even considering a spin-off movie). I don’t see the attraction. Berry’s as good here as she is in “X-Men”, which makes “Monster’s Ball” look more and more like a fluke. I just didn’t buy her shooting a gun - she looked scared, not like an NSA Agent. I was more intrigued with British Agent Miranda Frost, a more complex, fleshed-out character. The opening is excellent - let’s watch Bond kick-ass. I mean, he does it so well, why make us wait? There is even a segment where Bond is captured and sent to prison. This series of prison scenes shows us a side of Bond I’ve never seen. And it led to an interesting series of espionage capers. But it could’ve gone even deeper. Is Bond a rogue agent? Traitorous? It’s dealt with quickly, but there’s good spy stuff there that Bond always seems to set aside in favor of familiar Bond plot. The familiar is as good as ever, but the enticement for more left me with blistering action, but few surprises.
ABOUT SCHMIDT (***1/2) - I’m going to cut right to best part of this film - the ending. This film has the BEST ending of any film this year. And many times, that’s crucial to the film’s success (just as it can KILL a movie - see “Unbreakable” and “Pay it Forward”). With “About Schmidt”, the film meanders a bit in the middle, so to come back with an ending that’s just right in every aspect is a great service to the story. Jack Nicholson gives a surprising perfomance (keeping his trademark charisma in check in lieu of suppression and mild-manners) as Schmidt, a retiring insurance actuary who evaluates his life on the brink of his daughter’s wedding. Schmidt’s journey of self-analysis is poignant, outrageous, odd, and, as I mentioned before, sometimes meandering (I didn’t find importance in every scene as Schmidt travels across the midwest to the wedding). Throughout, it is very real. The character relationships are so real, it’s sometimes heartbreaking, with the script lacking the stand-offish comic bite of director Alexander Payne’s previous films (“Citizen Ruth” and “Election”), and instead going for a more personal examination of Schimdt’s life. And it doesn’t always play out like a Hallmark card. Dermot Mulroney is great as Schmidt’s daughter’s fiancee, and Hope Davis is also very good, striking an interesting balance between dependence and revolt as Schmidt’s daughter. But the film is About Nicholson, and he is brilliant. To see the film end with such delicate care is the finest work by director, writers and actor this year.
BOWLING FOR COLUMBINE (****) - Easily one of the year’s best films. Michael Moore has transcended all genres to become a style unto himself. It’s obvious that he’s very opinionated, and has immersed himself as such a PRESENT character in his films that they really aren’t documentaries anymore. They certainly aren’t narrative, so what we’re left with is a unique experience everytime he gets pissed and picks up the camera. Moore’s quest in this film is a difficult one to complete. He’s trying to determine why America has the highest gun-related death toll per year of all the countries of the world. This leads to classic interviews and segments that explore a real reckless and sometimes thoughtless attitude towards guns in the U.S. The film is superb in being in the same few minutes, both hilarious and harrowing. Moore’s interview with Terry Nichols’ brother is jam-packed with irony Moore couldn’t have WRITTEN better, and then a replay of the horrific events at Columbine High School (audio clips from 911 coupled with security camera footage) is the most powerful filmmaking I’ve seen this year. The segment on Canada goes on a little long, we get the point about our peaceful neighbor’s to the north long before the bit is done, but the rest of the film moves at a breakneck pace. Throughout, Moore’s opinion is predominant (he even comforts a subject of his interview without cutting away), so it’s crucial that you enjoy his point of view. If you haven’t dug him in the past (“Roger & Me”, “The Big One”), he’s not catering to anyone in “Bowling For Columbine”. And I’ll follow this guy’s passionate filmmaking anywhere.
THE EMPEROR’S CLUB (**) - (I give away a little about plot here, just so you know) Kevin Kline is one of my favorite actors, but even his solid work can’t help some flaws in this script from affecting my ability to like it. Kline plays a headmaster at a boy’s academy who instills in his students the major importance of Roman Emperor’s and their history. Some care as much as he does, others don’t give a damn. I fell somewhere in the middle. His explanation to a US Senator of the value of what he teaches was effective, he seriously wants to build up the character of these young boys. However, he has an action in the movie’s center that sets off a tragic turn of events for everyone. It concerns his grading of the boy’s papers. I couldn’t help but lose respect for Kline’s character after his move. It would mean more to me if the child he was out to ‘help’ was worth the fight. That’s a nasty trend in the movies these days, where we’re being asked to really care for characters that are not worth the effort. Kline’s act is a move of such glaring unfairness that I couldn’t root for him, and any tragedy that followed seemed earned, which isn’t all that tragic. Another tough gimmick in the film is a time jump of 25 years. Often, films do this as a coda to the action, but “The Emperor’s Club” spends much time there, and I thought the fine work of the young actors in the first half of the film was sorely missed. The twists and turns at the end are quite good comments on society, the film doesn’t go exactly where you’d think. In fact, on the whole, I predicted that the film would be more familiar than it was. It certainly isn’t a “Dead Poets Society”, as it concentrates more on students changing the teacher than the other way around. It is, however, saddled with a bad title. The title SOUNDS like “Dead Poets Society”, when there really is no ‘group’ in the story. It could’ve easily been called “The Emperors”. A rental.
I saw the following films in the discount movie house, and now they’re new on video:
ENOUGH (*1/2) - The entire existence of this movie is simply to serve it’s ending. Jennifer Lopez plays “wife done wrong” and sets out to exact revenge on her husband. As she sets her plan into action, even the eight or ten people in the house when I saw this May release in a cheapie house were cheering. But is the end worth the trip? A solid no to that. Jennifer Lopez is not a strong enough actress to carry out the grief her character feels. Because of her dating exploits and “singing” career, people just assume she’s an established actress. Truth is, she’s never had that critically lauded film that other actresses in her league have had. For example: “Anaconda” is no “Erin Brockovich”, or “Steel Magnolias”. To keep the Roberts comparison alive, “Enough” is ALOT like “Sleeping With the Enemy”, which, last time I checked was a festering pile of dog shit. I guess Lopez’ “Out of Sight” is the closest she’s come, but beyond “appealing”, I still can’t label Lopez as having solid acting chops. Outside of her performance, the film itself is pretty flat, too. The movie frames some scenes with title cards, but adandons that idea for no apparent reason. Bill Campbell is decent as the menacing husband, but it seems like his reach and means are a little far-fetched, and Noah Wyle is just goofy. There is a supporting performance by the GREAT Fred Ward that’s briefly enjoyable. Also, poor Juliette Lewis, a great actress, appears in another thankless role. I seem to remember the kid sucking ass, nothing new there. “Enough” pretty much covers the basics of both a story of spousal abuse and a revenge tale...and nothing more. It’s by the numbers, and more should be asked of director Michael Apted at this point.
LIFE OR SOMETHING LIKE IT (**) - I saw this new-to-DVD release on a plane recently and was surprised by its earnestness. I thought it was just going to be a dopey Angelina Jolie romance. However, the movie actually addresses loftier goals like examining life choices, happiness in life and work and even throws in some legitimate suspense. However, despite its addressing of these themes, it doesn’t meet them. The writing is rather trite, offering nothing new in the NY-socialite-who-has-it-all-or-does-she? plot. Plus, you got Ed Burns phoning it in (I’m looking forward to the day he doesn’t play laconic guy and really invests in some big-deal storyline). And what’s the deal with that fembot hairdo, Ang? Even news anchors went “What the hell is that?”. I want to see a really good movie with Angelina Jolie. Still waiting.
REIGN OF FIRE (*) - More misleading marketing. Much like the Clones who never attack, dragons never attack London, like the poster for this dud suggests. I don’t even think there’s a shot of it in a quick here’s-how-the-dragons-took-over-the-earth montage. I avoid previews, and I STILL got screwed. But please, a note to the filmmakers, all any of us wanted from this film was DRAGON, DRAGON and MORE DRAGON. Why couldn’t you deliver? Instead there’s who-cares plots with arguing humans. Boring. The interesting lives of these people would only be worth watching if we got more of the dragons that make them live the way they do. Add all that to cornball dialogue and buckets of cheese and you get a real disappointment, especially coming from some of “The X-Files” best minds.
LILO & STITCH (***) - The best all-around pleasing conventionally-drawn animated Disney film since “Tarzan”. Sounds like a mouthfull, but it basically means that the last two big Disney flicks were misfires in one way or another. “The Emperor’s New Groove” I found dopey and not the least bit engrossing. “Atlantis” was wonderfully drawn with some good voice work, but with a needlessly cryptic plot. “Lilo & Stitch” is hilarious and impressively drawn, exciting and emotional. At the heart of the success of this film, for me, is Stitch, the alien experiment who flees his home planet for Earth, with other aliens in hot pursuit. He is a hothead, off-the-wall character by Disney standards that really livens things up. He just wants to eat and kill. Not many Disney characters out there like that and a brave direction to go that paid off. The film also contains a lot of Elvis songs and humor that appeals to adult sensibilities. There are also action scenes that beat anything most summer fare like “Windtalkers” had to offer. “Lilo & Stitch” was a big hit, and it will hopefully re-invigorate a movie genre I’ve always enjoyed that can share a piece of the pie with CGI features.