To all the girls I've loved before,
Time slips away and next thing you know, I've seen eleven movies I haven't commented on yet! I saw them in spurts, so long periods of time would go by where I didn't see a movie, then I'd see three or four. So, this review block has been delayed and delayed but now comes at ya with much content in tow.
FYI, any SAG members interested in seeing free movies, any film that has a SAG award nominee in it is free to members with dues paid up. Check the paper where you are, but that's pretty much the deal. I saw Quills and Traffic that way, and highly recommend you go see "Requiem for a Dream" now that it's free 'cause Ellen Burstyn got a SAG award nod. The awards are the beginning of March 11, so you have from now till then to check out good stuff for free!
Here's my Bloomin' Opinion (sponsored by Outback Steakhouse):
MISS CONGENIALITY (**1/2) - One of Sandra Bullock's more enjoyable efforts, and I think the right vehicle for her if she still wants the Julia Roberts crowd to go to her films, too. The whole idea of calling out beauty contests as shallow and lame is nothing new. In fact, "Beautiful" with Minnie Driver came out earlier THIS year, following "Drop Dead Gorgeous". But the whole idea of a tomboy in the race seemed fresh because of Sandra. She's got her funny bone back. That's why people liked her in the first place, and this will hopefully make people forget non-funny (and non-interesting) movies like "Speed 2" and "Practical Magic". It helps her to be surrounded by some great performers. Shatner's in this. SHATNER!! Need I say more!?!? Candice Bergen is having a blast, and will hopefully appear in more films (I miss her since she left TV). But the perfect touch to make Sandra look great is putting her alongside Michael Caine. This guy is BRILLIANT! He is a total pro, and he kills as the pageant coordinator hired to whip Sandra's tomboy into shape. He's in classic "Dirty Rotten Scoundrels" mode which reminds you (after seeing him in "Cider House Rules" and "Quills") that he can do anything. And do it well. (Read his book!) The movie gets bogged down in plot about halfway through it, and doesn't dispense as many huge guffaws at that point, but there are enough for me to have had fun.
CAST AWAY (****) - Total excellence on behalf of Robert Zemeckis and Tom Hanks. I saw this film and enjoyed it. But it's the conversations I've had since seeing it that have really prompted my total interest and perhaps a second viewing sometime soon. It comes down to this, if you're going to spend 2 hours on a desert island with anyone, Tom Hanks is the guy. Plus, it's good to see Robert Zemeckis dealing with material in a smart way, as he did with "Contact". The themes and symbolism in this movie run deep and stuck with me for a long time. The final shot is priceless. Again, this is another film where I'd love to discuss more, but it would be at the price of giving the ending away. If anyone wants further ranting, please write to me what you thought. Without giving too much away, I'll say that the pace at the end was a little slower than the rest of the film, perhaps too slow, but in retrospect, I felt as awkward as Tom Hanks' character Chuck, and that empathy was strong stuff. There are some crucial monologues beautifully delivered and directed towards the end. It's great writing, and there's an Oscar-worthy supporting performance by a volleyball.
By the way, in not giving away the end of "Cast Away", I keep my New Year's resolution in tact. I've still seen NO previews this year, except for "Original Sin", which I have no desire to see. I recommend this for everyone. The "Traffic" previews are ruthless - see the movie first.
THE EMPEROR'S NEW GROOVE (**) - Yeah, it was funny, but... This is Disney's effort to buck the sweeping epic notion that most of their recent projects have had ("Hunchback", "Tarzan"), and just be funny. What did I think was missing? That sweeping, epic feel. The plot is wildly simple. You can tell that was part of the Disney suits' plan when they scrapped this production (then titled "Kingdom of the Sun") halfway through it's completion and went with David Spade and a load of yuks. But the yuks come and go and you're left with a relatively hollow movie. "Hercules", which I thought was HILARIOUS (you can't beat James Woods) was made a better film than this BECAUSE of the journey the hero took and the amount that you cared for him. This has simply the laughs, and they seem to mostly be plucked from something you'd find on Disney's Saturday Morning on ABC. There's always been something about the Disney films that separated them from standard TV animation. I hope that returns for Disney's upcoming "Atlantis".
CROUCHING TIGER, HIDDEN DRAGON (***1/2) - EPIC with a capital "E". The best way to describe this film is to say that if David Lean were ever to make a Kung Fu movie, this is what it would be. Ang Lee has fashioned a film that's the closest thing I've seen to a dream on film. The film acts, looks, sounds and progresses like a dream, full to the brim with larger-than-life characters, grandiose plots, magic and legends. The leads are terrific (I love the fact that everytime Ebert & Roeper mention this movie, they refer to Chow Yun-Fat as "The Great Chow Yun-Fat"), and I was especially impressed by Zhang Ziyi as the meddling daughter of a diplomat. Her story is fascinating, and her fight scenes are unholy!! The film also goes through every emotion in the book: fear, revenge, love, restraint, sadness, excitement, joy. It's awesome, I recommend it to everyone. And it has a last shot that outdoes "Cast Away".
TRAFFIC (****) - We're on a roll of great films. It's that time of year. I reviewed "Requiem for a Dream" positively in my last movie rave. It's a contender for best film of 2000 for me because of the giant thumbprint Darren Aronofsky put on that film. It was, no question, HIS movie. Well, that theory of filmmaking works again in "Traffic", a film whose story is told, undeniably, as Steven Soderburgh wanted to tell it. I admire that in PT Anderson's films, too (whose "Magnolia" I still love, and, most likely alone on this, wish was longer!). Intermeshing a number of stories revolving around the U.S.'s unwinnable drug war, you never lose interest in any one plot development, never get confused, and never stop being impressed. I was impressed by the acting (including "The Great" Benicio Del Toro), the script (with an amazing 90-some locations and 135 speaking roles), the photography (Mexico = yellow), and also by the fact that, like "Requiem", this film about drugs and drug users never fell on familiar territory, and if it did, it transcended it. My only regret is that Harrison Ford was on tap to play Michael Douglas' role and he bowed out. Douglas' was great, Ford could've been, too, and he could also use some time spent in an indie feature of this high, high quality.
QUILLS (***1/2) - More good stuff. The dialogue of this film (and the way it's delivered by Geoffrey Rush and Michael Caine especially) absolutely crackles! Just as it's subject, the Marquis De Sade, lived through his words, this film finds it's finest moments in conversation and talk. Another one not for the timid, this film is ripe with urgency - just how far will people go to censor words they feel are offensive? It happened then, it happens now. Classic line (paraphrased) after people react violently to the Marquis' words:
Abbe - "You did this!"
Marquis - "Come now, if people tried to walk on water and drowned, you wouldn't blame the Bible, would you?"
There is not a word of dialogue that the Marquis says that isn't particularly chosen and full of double-entendre and secret meaning. I like to think he spoke like that. An exceptionally prolix, no...how about periphrastic? No...VERBOSE man and brilliant writer, but he simply wanted to write about prostitutes and sex. Again - wall to wall great performances. Rush is great, and I'm very impressed that Joaquin Phoenix is twice the actor his brother was. He's been great in both this and "Gladiator" this year. And his choices for how to play his characters in both films are never the obvious. I like Phillip Kaufman alot (especially because he had a hand in writing "Raiders of the Lost Ark", my all-time favorite film, and I loved "The Right Stuff"), and it's good to see him back (about 8 or 9 years since his last film) in top form.
WHAT WOMEN WANT (***) - Well, I laughed alot. Is it great? No. Is it a funny time-passer. Well, you have to like Mel. And I LOVE Mel. "The Patriot" still remains one of the most entertaining films I've seen this year, despite the hubub over its historical truths (or half-truths). And I went with him for this film, too. The writing actually does some interesting things with the concept of being able to hear women's thoughts. He goes through torture, and then he's able to use his ability and it's a fun ride. The bummer is that the ending isn't all that great. The dialogue is kind of weak there. Again, I like Mel, it was most likely because of that fact that I enjoyed this more than I probably should have.
BILLY ELLIOT (***1/2) - I LOVED THIS MOVIE!!!! This is just a great frackin' movie!! Some have called it unabashedly sentimental. If so, then call me the same, 'cause I went right along for the ride. There's no denying that the director (Stephen Daldry, who's from the same theater-to-film direction league as Sam Mendes - and I liked this film more than "American Beauty". I mean, "Beauty" was good, but are we really shocked that the suburbs are sleazy? It was no "South Park") captured a place and feeling quite convincingly. Sure, the poor British workers, we've seen them in "The Full Monty" and any Ken Loach film, but there's never been a character quite like Billy Elliot. You really, really get behind this kid, and I became totally involved in his story. I also think there's Oscar nods to be dealt out to both Jamie Bell (Billy) and Gary Lewis (his father). It seems like the wussy, Merchant-Ivory, Vanessa Redgrave entry into this year's awards fray. But don't be put off, SEE IT.
SHADOW OF THE VAMPIRE (**1/2) - This is a pretty good movie, but I think it loses a half a star for me because I don't recall ever being surprised. Even avoiding the preview, I don't recall seeing much beyond the story I expected to see. It's not without great performances. Willem Dafoe is great. He's always been great. He will continue to be great. And any movie with Eddie Izzard warrants a viewing (see his stand-up special "Dress to Kill" if you haven't yet). It's got a feel all it's own, it's original, it's occasionally funny, and it's very well made. But....I don't know...I just....I don't know. It does have a good ending. I'm really on the fence with this one...can you tell?
O BROTHER, WHERE ART THOU? (***) - Damn that fence!! This one...um....I don't know. It was good. Here's the problem I have that's at the heart of this film. It's based on "The Odyssey", and I think I just don't LIKE "The Odyssey". It's a Greek story of a guy who has a bunch of stuff happen to him. He doesn't really go on a quest, he doesn't have an emotional journey. It's not unlike Candide after a while. So, when the heroes of "Brother" have their adventure, it seemed to go nowhere fast. But, because it's the Coen Brothers, it was never boring. The dialogue they give EVERY character is interesting. I LOVE the Coens so much, I almost wish they just took these characters and wrote them an original story. Even a plotless movie like "The Big Lebowski" comes alive through the Coen's originality. This one meanders a bit more than "Lebowski" and for that never achieve's greatness. It probably should be **1/2, but I'm working with more bias.
FINDING FORRESTER (**1/2) - "Your the man now, dogg!". I don't know about you, but I say that all the time in a lousy Scottish dialect. It's fun, try it. Ready..."You're the man now, dogg!" Wasn't that fun? I swear I've seen the plot involving a young man who befriends a reclusive genius before. Where have I seen it? If you've read this far in the longer-than-the-Odyssey e-mail before you, and you know where you've seen this plot, PLEASE e-mail me and let me know. It's killing me. Nevertheless, because I felt I'd seen it before, I was never knocked out by this film. It's smart and well made, but nothing to skip "Traffic" over. It's GREAT to see Connery in something that doesn't have the words "Entrapment" or "Rock" in the title. I hope he decides to make more personal films in the future. Director Gus Van Zant does a huge disservice to his film at the end in how he handles the delicate material of the characters' writing. He drops the ball big time.
That's it (for now). Nothing really sucked, thank God. I'm sending along a Top 10 and bottom 10 of 2000 before the Oscar nominations come out next week, 'cause then I'll have to send out ANOTHER e-mail to tell you all how wrong they are.
Enjoying this too much,
Paul