MOVIES!
I’ve got alot of ground to cover, let’s get to it. ‘Cause when this is done, then it’s on to my Top Ten of 2001 list, PLUS my Oscar rants. So, much to do:
BLACK HAWK DOWN (****) - No doubt the best film Jerry Bruckheimer has ever made. If you remember my review of “Pearl Harbor”, the best part of the film was the air attack, with the romance, acting and everything else sucking. In “Black Hawk Down”, Bruckheimer has done away with all those petty things like relationships and characters that just got in his way. What we’re left with is an absolutely FIERCE battle epic. It also helps to have knee-deep-in-the-blood-and-sand Ridley Scott at the helm as opposed to glossy-sheen-teeth-oh-so-white Michael Bay. The squadron of troops in “Black Hawk Down” get their orders near the beginning of the film. They’re going into the most hostile section of Somalia to apprehend a criminal tied to a warlord who’s been executing Somali people and hording U.S. food supplies meant for the masses. In and out in thirty minutes. The rest of the film depicts their mission, and how it turned into an over 12-hour nightmare. If there’s one fault in the film, it would be the same one I had with U-571. Many’s the time the soldiers became faceless, meaning I couldn’t tell who was who in the chaos of the battle. I can always depict the stars (Josh Hartnett, Ewan McGregor, Jason Isaacs), but other players tended to blend together. Some would say that’s the point, but I found it a bit of a pain when a soldier would go down, and I wasn’t sure who exactly it was. The best performance came from Tom Sizemore, who embodied the film’s tag line - “leave no man behind”. The bravery these soldiers show is so beyond me, I found it very impressive to watch, and very well depicted onscreen. Naturally, it draws parallels to what our troops are doing today in Afghanistan, and only further earns my respect for them. In “Black Hawk Down”, the soldiers are thrust into an absolutely LAWLESS society, filled with absolute FREAKS who don’t know the first thing about civilization. They’re savages, plain and simple. “Black Hawk Down” as been getting alot of flak for being racist. To me, an asshole is an asshole, color be damned, and the Somali militia in this film are more relentless and brutal than any sci-fi story could dream up. What they present is a real, honest-to-God (or Allah) DANGER. That’s what’s missing from the majority of bad action movies these days. And that constant, constant threat makes it impossible to look away. This is a thrilling movie.
MONSTER’S BALL (****) - This is the best film of the year.
A heavy-duty drama that hits on all counts, “Monster’s Ball” is a winner from every direction. The script is full of surprises, suspense and high emotion. It involves two characters coming together who are damaged by tremendous loss. But do they desire healing? What secrets do they harbor? Do they have ulterior motives? Since I was carried away by the feeling of not knowing what was going to happen next, I’m not going to spoil anything for you. But I could NOT STOP WATCHING. The acting is great, from everyone. Halle Berry is so super-charged, with anger, depression, hate and pain oozing from every scream and sulk, she’s my front-runner for the Best Actress Oscar. And Billy Bob Thornton...oh, Billy Bob. Is there a better actor working today? His performances are continually DEAD ON. He displays a level of finesse that allows him to achieve greatness in every scene he is in, from spewing anger to pleading for sympathy. He is brilliant.
Again, he is brilliant.
Peter Boyle and Heath Ledger are very good, and even Sean Combs. Sean Combs! P.Thespy puts in a good turn, not to mention Mos Def. I’m serious.
I’d never seen any films by “Monster’s Ball” director Marc Forster, but I won’t miss one in the future. He is meticulous, specific and (my favorite characteristic in any director) deliberate in every choice, and his exactness pays off to build suspense, strengthen character, and set a marvelous, deep south tone that permeates the whole picture. Again, the acting propels this film, but these characters are invaluable creations, and their story is told with great conviction and bushels of talent. I’ve got nothing bad to say about it. See it soon.
THE SHIPPING NEWS (***) - With success after success, director Lasse Hallstrom is starting to get the backlash that usually accompanies such accolades. But, dammit, he’s done it again. He has fashioned a solid fable, with good performances, interesting locales, off-kilter characters, and strong technical support on all levels. I liked this film more than “Chocolat”, but not as much as “What’s Eating Gilbert Grape?” on the Hallstrom-eter. The one drawback is the eccentricities of the characters. Might there be a few to many? Not every small town is full of amiable noodleheads. The movies would tell you otherwise. I guess that’s not “The Shipping News”’ fault as much as it is the unfortunate positioning of the movie within the tiresomeness of a current movie trend. Look at how nutty everyone is in “Waking Ned Devine”. Look, I say! So, where does this leave the earnest performances? Many are still effective, most notably Cate Blanchett finishing out a stellar year doing a great job as Kevin Spacey’s wife. And when you’re dealing with Spacey, Judi Dench and Julianne Moore, you can pretty much leave them with the work ahead, and, as a director, focus on other things. And sure enough, they come through with solid work. The script is a total downer, another of three year-end films to labor over the theme of loss. But, in the hands of this many skilled filmmakers, it ends up being an intriguing tale, worth a look.
VANILLA SKY (*) - Sorry, Tom, but this time you blew it. I normally find Tom Cruise to be a capable leading man, who uses his Hollywood clout to get into some decent projects from time to time (“The Firm”, “Jerry Maguire”, “Eyes Wide Shut” - love it or hate it, you would’ve killed to be in it, too). Unfortunately, this project, which Cruise had his hands all over, is a confusing mess. Just as there were three films focused on loss this year, there are FOUR focused on bending reality. But where “Memento” was a success, “Vanilla Sky” just seems plodding. Getting into what this movie is about would be a spoiler and downright bewildering. I will say that Cameron Diaz gives the best performance in the film. But I can’t stress enough that Penelope Cruz SUCKED! SUCKED! SUCKED! SUCKED! So, let’s go to the tote board: she’s “taking Hollywood by storm” and has SUCKED in the following films:
“Blow” (Turns out you CAN suck in “Blow”)
“Captain Corelli’s Mandolin”
“Woman on Top”
“All the Pretty Horses”
and now
“Vanilla Sky”
She’s did the right thing sleeping with Tom Cruise if she wants to stick around. In this film, she just played boring, quiet, meek little nothing-interesting-about her AGAIN. The worst part is that I don’t buy her. Not for a SECOND. I never, ever buy her in the movie. UGH, her success absolutely confounds me. The worst news is that Tom is bad in this film, too. This is the vanity project we’ve all been worried was coming. I didn’t buy him much, either. But, isn’t he pretty? And isn’t Penelope pretty? Aren’t they? I SAID AREN’T THEY? The end of this film is a pretty weak payoff, with an unexplained, unexplored, out-of-left-field plot point suddenly explaining the whole deal. Up till then, it was so confusing, I never cared.
SPY GAME (****) - One of the biggest surprises of the year. Not that I expected it to be bad, but I never expected to like it as much as I did. We all know Tony Scott can make a slick Hollywood movie (“Top Gun”, “Days of Thunder”, “Beverly Hills Cop II”), but only occasionally is that big production value coupled with an intriguing story (“Crimson Tide”), or interesting characters (“True Romance”). “Spy Game” hits on both counts, a wonderfully inventive thriller that continually surprised me, anchored by two stars in fine form. I continue to be impressed with Brad Pitt’s project choices. Even if there’s the occasional “The Mexican” of “Meet Joe Black”, more often you’ll find him in more challenging film’s the quality of “12 Monkeys” of “Fight Club”. Pitt is perfectly cast in “Spy Game”, as he was just as convincing as a naive soldier as he was a slick CIA operative. The ins and outs of the storyline are unmentionable. The slightest fact is important enough to ruin crucial plot points. It’s an extremely intricate network of espionage plotting and scheming that is a joy to watch unfold. And you’ve got to keep up! This movie MOVES, jump cutting between time and places at an exciting pace, but Scott manages to keep it all together. At the center of it all is a cool-as-the-other-side-of-the-pillow Redford, in his relaxed-yet-commanding form. Some may call his acting style lacksidaisical or passive. In the hands of lesser material, that may be the case, but “Spy Game” is a thrilling concoction worthy of Clancy and some of the best stuff mainstream Hollywood’s churned out in a long while.
IN THE BEDROOM (****) - One of the year’s best films. In fact, only bested by “Monster’s Ball”. Another heartbreaking film that is surprising and intelligent. Both script and direction are flawless. Much like this year’s “O”, this is another impressive directing effort by an actor. Director Todd Field was previously seen in “Eyes Wide Shut”, and his pace and focus seem similar to Kubrick. But this film is less cold, it’s alive with raw emotion and tension. Field garners as much interest and creativity in what he doesn’t show as what he does. In fact, some of the most crucial moments of the story are left offscreen, lending an air of mystery to the proceedings and certainly giving the viewer an active role in the storytelling. After a summer full of leave-your-head-at-the-door movies, this is very refreshing. Field’s writing and directing are complemented by top notch cinematography, editing, and locations that suit the range of characters in this New England town, from middle class to white trash. The performances are of equal quality. Sissy Spacek hasn’t shown such command in years, and, despite being slightly hindered by a dialect, Tom Wilkinson is very believable as his character goes through a hundred different emotions. But it all comes down to the story they are telling. Sad, powerful, complex, suspenseful, “In the Bedroom” is a brilliant film.
A BEAUTIFUL MIND (***) - It was good to see Ron Howard come back from the critical lambasting he received for “How the Grinch Stole Christmas” with this reviewer’s darling. But as “The Grinch” proved, critical praise of no critical praise, Howard’s movies will make money. Why? They’re so easily accessible. Think of all the other MATH films that’ve grossed 150 million? “Pi”? Maybe “Good Will Hunting”? “The Computer Wore Tennis Shoes”? Howard is probably the only director besides Spielberg who’s name can lure people to buy a ticket. His projects wildly vary, and he always brings some of the best in the game along with him (this time he is joined by BRILLIANT DP Roger Deakins and James Horner, nominated for his score here as he was for an Oscar with Howard’s “Apollo 13”). And the one thing you can say about “A Beautiful Mind” is that it is most accessible, easy to get in to and successful as a drama and romance. It hasn’t hurt Ron Howard to have the best leading men in Hollywood, too. Tom Hanks, Mel Gibson, and now Russell Crowe, who is riding a string of great performances - “LA Confidential”, “The Insider”, “Gladiator” and now “A Beautiful Mind”. And it’s not like he sucked in “Mystery, Alaska”, and “Proof of Life”, either. Love him of hate him, they guy’s GOOD. He does a masterful job of bringing John Nash to life, delicately underplaying many important scenes and maintaining a mix of pathos and unpredictability in his situations. Jennifer Connelly continues her hot streak (a) she’s hot (b) she’s showered up after “Requiem for a Dream”, in which she was also very good. Plus, here’s a fact - after you put Ed Harris in your movie, I can automatically name twenty movies that will be inferior to yours. He’s a lock. The only thing preventing me from awarding this film its fourth star would be the very accessibility I mentioned before. In being accessible, it never quite got evisceral, and in present company (“In the Bedroom”, “Monster’s Ball”), the gauntlet for going one step beyond has been thrown. But it’s a sturdy Hollywood flick to be sure.
ALI (**1/2) - Let me start right out with the thing I found most disappointing about this film. That would be Ali himself. I knew a few tidbits about his life, but, after learning more from Michael Mann’s biopic, I still don’t find him very compelling. Naturally, the impeded by ability to get involved in the whole film. Ali was portrayed by Will Smith as a big child, yelling or talking in a slow, monotone that bordered on the retarded. I was more interested in Malcolm X, played wonderfully by Mario Van Peebles. And guess what? The biopic made about Malcolm X was fascinating! So most of the two and a half stars noted here come from Michael Mann’s style. He is a great filmmaker, and I’ve always enjoyed his offbeat choices. Who else would’ve thought to open a film about Muhammed Ali with a ten minute or so segment of Ali training that intercuts with a Sam Cooke performance? It’s out of left field, but original, energizing, and it works. His photography of the fights (which are quite lengthy scenes) are innovative, using digital cameras and POV shots, and that’s impressive seeing as how many boxing movies there have been, with each one trying to outdo “Raging Bull”. Much has been made of Jon Voight’s performance, but it’s not much beyond what the media showed us of Howard Cosell. So, due to a cartoonish lead character, I couldn’t really get into “Ali”.
GHOST WORLD (**1/2) - There’s something enjoyable about a couple of characters who hate everything. And the most interesting thing about “Ghost World” is how it shows you that you really can’t hate EVERYTHING. After a while, you have to like SOMETHING. Such is the dilemma facing the teens at the heart of this story. Terry Zwigoff, director of the GREAT “Crumb” shows he’s equally adept with narrative as with documentary, as he approaches the whole film with just the right, hip tone. But did I ever really care? Mildly, every now and then. Steve Buscemi shows up as the lonely guy too fragile to get hooked up with the careless teens of “Ghost World”. In the end, I was indifferent as to the fates of the characters, but, hey, at least I didn’t HATE them.
I AM SAM (**) - A noble film, so noble it makes you sick. Sean Penn plays a mentally challenged man who fights for custody of his daughter. His ability to raise her given his disability comes into question. Way to jump on that. She’s gotta be five or six. Why now? I would think that her most crucial years are behind her and somehow (inexplicably) he managed to raise her OK. Nevertheless, his current struggle to keep his daughter is a personal and court struggle that succeeds in good performances, but fails in plot development. Penn is predictably good, once again disappearing into his character. But the noble handicapped person’s been done before. Michelle Pfeiffer is fairly good, but her role seems hokey in the grand scheme (she plays a lawyer who works with Penn) as a big city lawyer stereotype. Even more thankless are the roles of Richard Schiff and Laura Dern. In fact, Dern’s final scene in the film is WILDLY contrived and a total script cop-out. Can you root for Penn’s character Sam? Sure, but the story never seems more than two dimensional. Dakota Fanning’s gotten some raves for playing Penn’s daughter, but, personally, there’s nothing I like less than watching children performing. They almost always overdo it. Have I mentioned that before? Plus, the director of photography thinks he’s shooting NYPD Blue, and the camera moves around quite a bit, and never necessarily. It’s a stylistic choice that the story doesn’t seem worthy of. If this movie had the depth and feeling of Penn’s “Dead Man Walking”, I could see a number of stylistic choices working here. But “I Am Sam” never really soars above melodrama.
FOCUS (**) - This film slipped under the radar without any hubub. I can see why. It’s an interesting story that seems underwritten. Although based on something written by the great Arthur Miller, it seems to cover the surface of emotions laid out in a neighborhood during World War II. What if you were determined to be a Jew in an anti-semitic period of America? An interesting notion, and worthy of a story, but this one seems to never get DEEP into the subject. It, as I said, skims the surface and just, I don’t know, seems small-time. William H. Macy and Laura Dern put in serviceable performances, but they’re hampered by some awkward dialogue and bad pacing by the director. This material could’ve seemed towering if directed by Spielberg or Soderbergh, or some other “berg”, but “Focus” as it stands now, “Focus” sometimes stumbles, sometimes is effective, but is never consistent in tone and pace. There is one great thing to look forward to if you see this film, it has an excellent ending. Just focus on that as you go through the ups and downs of this uneven drama.
CHARLOTTE GRAY (**) - Cate Blanchett was very prolific this year, showing up in five films. I’m surprised she didn’t get a Oscar nomination for at least one of them (I thought she was great in “The Shipping News”). Blanchett has also arisen as one of Hollywood’s most assured leads. After getting screwed out of an Oscar for 1998’s “Elizabeth”, she’s been in loads more intriguing projects than that year’s Academy Award winner, Gwyneth Paltrow. The intriguing “Charlotte Gray” has a story so bogus, it requires a strong female lead to anchor it. Blanchett does quite well portraying Gray, a British woman who joins the military as a spy when her lover’s plane goes down in France. But herein lies the film’s fatal flaw. She’s looking for her lover while getting embroiled in a French spy ring, so basically, scores of people DIE ‘cause she’s trying to find her BOYFRIEND. UGH. That’s just not compelling, folks. Especially when I really cared about the French characters played by Billy Crudup and Michael Gambon. Director Gillian Armstrong directs with old-school flair and unapologetic heaps of lush, romantic, war-time dramatic nostalgia. However, the story at its core is foolish, with a ridiculous ending I can’t imagine anyone in the theater favored.
OCEAN’S ELEVEN (****) - This movie is a total winner from start to finish. It’s cooler than me, it’s cooler than you, it’s cooler than everyone we know. When this movie ended, I had a stupid-fat grin on my face, having thoroughly enjoyed everything I had just seen. I think we all know the film is about a guy, Danny Ocean, putting eleven guys together to rob a casino. The plot is extremely elaborate, with a few links more implausible than other, but it is A LOT of fun to watch. It’s never been more fun to root for the crook. This is a big, splashy Hollywood movie that could go very astray in the wrong hands. However, in the sturdy hands of director Steven Soderbergh, the entire, complex weaving of many characters and multiple storylines seems...effortless. This movie moves so easy and free-wheelingly, I just got swept up in it. Plus, the actors get the job done with power and style - especially Brad Pitt and George Clooney, who lead the charge. If anything, Clooney’s romance with Julia Roberts is the least interesting aspect of the plot. This is a refreshing heist flick for ADULTS. Savor it, few mainstream Hollywood films aim above 18 yrs. old.
GOSFORD PARK (*1/2) - Well made, I guess, but there’s no denying I was bored. Perhaps, being an actor who spent six months re-creating the Victorian era for living history tours, the upstairs/downstairs lives of wealthy people and their servants is nothing new to me. But many people who’ve put “Park” on their Top 10 of 2001 lists seem to find this dichotomy fascinating. Not to me. Despite capable performances from all the actors, I just couldn’t get into Robert Altman’s directing style. This isn’t the first production he’s directed sans flair. I wanted a little something. The photography wasn’t lush, the production design wasn’t especially ornate, the costumes weren’t all that catching. The whole thing just seemed grey and unimportant. The ‘ol just-put-the-cameras-on-’em-and-let-’em-go style wasn’t cutting it this time out. It’s just a shame that this film didn’t make room for “Memento” of “Monster’s Ball” at the Academy Awards nominations for Best Picture. If you really want to see a British servant’s story WITH all the above-mentioned production values, and TOP NOTCH acting, see “The Remains of the Day”.
And here’s a review of another movie from way back in the fall, but I just saw it recently:
FROM HELL (***) - I haven’t seen the much-praised comic book series from which “From Hell” was adapted, but I’m a big fan of its writer, Alan Moore, creator of the greatest comic series of all time, “The Watchmen”. (People like Terry Gilliam have tried to make “The Watchmen” into a film, but its budget would be too immense. It’s that big of story!) I was excited to see “From Hell” because Alan Moore is a dark dude, who loves to explore the seediness of any situation, and this time he was going to imagine his own scenario about the rise and fall of Jack the Ripper. Well, the only way this movie could’ve been any bleaker is if I DIED during the middle of it. This is a bloody, muddy, messy, ugly, sinister tale told with a noir-ish feel thta never once feels like a “comic book”. Who Jack the Ripper was remains a mystery of sorts, but we (and history) are not cheated at all by Moore’s imaginings, brought to chilly life by “Menace II Society” directors Allen and Albert Hughes. Even our hero, a detective played by Johnny Depp, is a drug addict. Depp is usually a sure thing, and this time is no different, plus he’s backed by an equally good Robbie Coltrane, finishing off a good double-duty with his charming, rougish performance in “Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone”. The weak link, however, and she’s done it before, is Heather Graham. She was good in “Boogie Nights”, and that’s about it. In “From Hell”, she plays a prostitute terrorized by Jack the Ripper, but I believed that performances by the other whores in her circle much easier. She’s not “The Spy Who Shagged Me”-type bad in this, but she is the weakest link. Goodbye.
Coming soon I’ll take care of the first half of 2002: the good (“The Rookie”), the bad (“Mothman Prophecies”) and the ugly (“Human Nature”)
Send responses!