Change Your Image
endymion82
Reviews
Into the Woods (2014)
Disturbing, Unsettling, Subversive, Compassionate, Intelligent, Beautiful
This movie isn't for everyone. The show isn't either. That's exactly why it's good.
One star for Disney having the guts to make a film of the show that challenges and inverts what Disney built its career on- sanitizing the common mythology of folktales and fairy tales. The anger with which people react to Disney having made this film is proof of why we needed it and they needed to do it.
One star for the costumes, a hodgepodge of sly references to the various European time periods and settings each of these tales comes from.
One star for the woods themselves. Haunting, beautiful, menacing, and so very real.
One star for the ensemble- probably the best assembled for a musical film since CHICAGO. Everyone can sing and sings well, more importantly they can all act, and act while they sing, which is essential for Sondheim.
One star for Anna Kendrick- she knocks her big song out of the park. Cinderella is the hardest character in the story- indecisive, sad, alienated, but so intelligent, so hopeful, so optimistic in spite of the abandonment, the beatings, the humiliation and ultimately even the betrayal of her fantasies- and Kendrick hits every beat perfectly, moving from girl to woman, from someone who can barely express what she wants to someone who tells her prince its over when she realizes she loves a man she doesn't actually know.
One star for Emily Blunt- so smart, so adept at crafting a character in broad and tiny strokes. The Baker's Wife is the jewel in the crown of a play/movie featuring an embarrassment of excellent and complex women's roles and Blunt carries the morally ambiguous but staunchly optimistic message of the movie beautifully. She's simultaneously charming, funny, tragic and human.
One star for James Corden- the best Baker I've ever seen, and I've seen a lot. He is the heart of the movie. His journey is profound. He's believable at every step and he, of everybody, made this character entirely his own.
One star for Stephen Sondheim- one of America's finest songwriters. The early songs are complex sung monologues of lyrical gymnastics, characters explaining their thinking, their motives, their discoveries in the deceptively simple manner of fairy tales, but as the story deepens the simple, sing-song melodies are replaced by richer, deeper, darker music, till we finally get the screaming wail of LAST MIDNIGHT and then the melancholy lullaby of NO ONE IS ALONE. It's brilliant, beautifully constructed, and eschews mainstream sound while still creating one of the richest harmonic pallets in any movie musical ever. And you have to listen to it more than once to truly get it- and that's okay.
One star for James Lapine, for finding a way to condense his stage play and reinvent it for a new millennium, for adhering to the moral ambiguity of the world he created and not compromising on that front.
One star for Rob Marshall, for opening his film with a shot of the sky, and closing it with the same, before the reprise of the prologue, with the last notes of CHILDREN WILL LISTEN playing themselves out. To have the guts to make a movie that tells the truth- that all of our lives are the space between Giant attacks brought on by the wishes of humans who can't see the long term consequences of their actions- is pretty commendable. We're a country so scared of the truth right now, and the moral of INTO THE WOODS is that fantasy has its place, as a coping mechanism, but the imagination always has been and always will be a double-edged sword. "I wish" is a powerful statement, and the spark of life (the Greeks knew this- and that's why the universe begins with the birth of Desire) but it's also the beginning of a long road that leads deeper and deeper into the woods- even when you think it leads out. And sure, you can see this as bleak, or you can see this as a rallying cry to be courageous and recognize life for what it is- brutal and hard, but graced with moments where you win or come to truly understand something, and where you are never alone because we're all going through it together.
This movie is absolutely suitable for children. I saw the show- which is much more violent and sexual- when I was 10. Best thing that ever happened to me, taught me how to live in the real world and care about other human beings and be a part of a community. Partly because I had parents who talked to me about the show I saw afterward. So yes, this movie is completely suitable for children- you just have to be the kind of parent who uses film to engage your child's mind, not shut them up for two hours with harmless drivel.
Meanwhile (2011)
A Perfect Little Film
I loved this film, and upon watching it, turned to my partner and said, "That just made me happier than anything I've seen all year." I've been a fan of Hartley's for years, (my favorite of his films is FLIRT) and this movie was a welcome return to form, the best aspects of his early work combined with the visually slick and fluid style of his later years. Excellent dialogue, gorgeous use of colors and camera angles, well paced and just the perfect mix of quirky humor, contemporary philosophy, and drama. Almost perfect in every way, with a truly excellent performance at the center, and as Hartley films go it is abnormally accessible to boot, though still entirely Hartley, and so perfect for fans and for folks looking for a door into the world of one of America's most talented but underrated modern film makers.
Cloud Atlas (2012)
Beautiful, Funny, Moving, Thought Provoking, Flawed
Saw a midnight showing of this film and was up all night thinking about it. Now, almost 12 hours later, I am finally forming some thoughts about it and I have to say: the majority are positive, and the whole of me really thinks everybody should see this movie, if only because it will give you so much to think about.
From a review perspective, there is a lot that is good: the visuals, the pacing, the bulk of the script. As a fan of the book, was there stuff I missed? Characters, episodes, conversations- sure. But I get that it had to be cut down and re-shaped to make it work as a film, and I think it does work. In some ways it is even more powerful, helping to bring home a lot of the inter-connected elements of the novel's nesting stories with an extra dramatic punch that only something like film can really provide. If there are occasional mis-steps, they are in moments when it gets a little too heavy handed and for me this is really confined to the ending- the final moments of both Zachry's and Adam's stories feel just a bit too layered on, almost as if the film makers were afraid we wouldn't get it. Ironic, since the film demands so much from its audience (it's in no way a passive movie experience) up to that point, and maybe the intention was to, in some ways, ease the audience out of the three hours of wildly engaging cinema they had been subjected to.
The performances run the gamut from decent (Tom Hanks) to solid (Halle Berry) to good (Keith David, James D'arcy) to inspired (Hugh Grant, Susan Sarandon, Jim Sturgess)to the brilliant (Ben Whishaw, Jim Broadbent, Doona Bae). Is the make-up occasionally distracting? Yes, but often it's supposed to be, with the men of New Seoul, for instance, looking utterly strange and phony next to the all-too-human female fabricants, and the ridiculous 70's haircuts slyly reminding you that Luisa Reyes' story is told through the eyes of a precocious young novelist. Sometimes the make-up is startlingly good- Broadbent, for instance, is completely unrecognizable as the 19th century ship captain, and Xun Zhou disappears into her role as Tom Hank's sister in the far far future. Like every other aspect of this movie, it's one more piece of a puzzle that is by turns utterly sincere and completely tongue-in-cheek.
And in the end, that's what allows this movie to transcend some its flaws: for every mis-step, there is a bullseye, and it leaves you wondering if even some of the "mistakes" or "oversights" are part of the equation, intentionally done to make you think harder about what you just saw. Some of the stories feel dense and rich, some feel shallow and pulpy- but all of them are compelling and watchable and leave you wanting more. The over-all impression is one of a myriad of complex and diverse indivdiuals, who in their brief moments all contribute to a larger impression of humanity as a whole, of life as an experience, of the universe and history composed of many tiny points of light, each intrinsically valuable, but only truly catching your eye for a moment, usually as one falls to its death, or breaks from its fixed place to wander. The statement is deeply compelling, but what is more remarkable is how each element of the movie structurally upholds that core statement, as no one person or tale is allowed to upstage another (though of course, some elements will call stronger to some viewers), but the piece as a whole could not be as effective without each of them.
It's a remarkably ambitious work of art, in both what it is trying to say and how it is trying to say it, and it's not for everybody. That, for me, makes me like it even more: it seems rare that such a big budget, star spangled film should take so many risks, and be so uncompromising. In light of that, I think it's something people should see, even if they hate it. Liking a work of art is less important than if we're stimulated by it, and I can't imagine anyone seeing this film and not having something to talk about afterwards.
Cthulhu (2007)
Excellent Little Film
I'm a gay man, and a huge Lovecraft fan, and I loved this film. So did two straight male friends of mine who are also Lovecraft fans. Being a gay man is not why I like this movie, and anyone who says otherwise is an idiot. I rarely like any "gay" films.
It's beautifully shot and very well acted. The script is good- spare and well-paced, the sexual content is subtle (my mom could handle this movie just fine) and while yes, it's in no way shape or form an adaptation of any Lovecraft story per se (it has the most in common with "Shadow over Innsmouth," and even that is pretty tangential) it certainly has a lot of influence from Lovecraft, and the film-makers stay very true to the spirit and atmosphere of his stories.
Do not believe the detractors: this film is both a good horror film, and a good gay movie: both are rare, even rarer when combined (in fact, I'm hard-pressed to think of another good gay horror movie out there and I see a lot of movies). Purists won't like it, but they need to let go of how it's not how they would do it, or go make their own movie (and then find out how all the purists won't like their version either). Don't have expectations: just see the film and appreciate it for what it is (a gloomy, cynical little horror story), not what you think it's supposed to be.
The Informers (2008)
Lovely, Economical, Barebones Tragedy
I haven't commented on a film on IMDb in years but this movie seems to be getting mostly slammed so I feel a need to log one for other side because I am definitely a fan.
I'm going to talk about the movie as a whole, so consider this your **************SPOILERS*********************************** warning.
I can see why some people wouldn't like this movie. It's definitely not a comedy and it's definitely not mainstream. The majority of the characters are not likable, though most of them are sympathetic- which is what I think bothers so many audience members: you can't automatically hate Graham, Les, Christie, Laura, Carole, etc. because you pity them, and maybe even empathize with them. And that is a feeling most people don't want to feel, especially at the movies, where we have been led to believe we should always expect characters we want to relate to, and a few hours of escape from reality.
This movie isn't an escape. It's glitzy and polished, it's full of beautiful people, but that's the lure that gets you into the trap. And this movie is a trap: it's about how there is no escape because life doesn't end just because the credits role and the things you do and are done to you are going to be with you forever. So choose wisely- or at the very least, humanely. That's the lesson Graham is supposed to learn in this film. The ending is ambiguous as to if he learns it or not. Either way, it's not a lesson most of us want to be confronted with, especially on a night out, and it's really not something we want to be confronted with by a movie only to have the movie fail to then tell us what to think by having a clear cut resolution for the character.
There is a lot of bile thrown at this film for it's lack of morality but I actually find the film very moral: the idea of "good" is integral to the story and characters. It just never gets defined. Which is true for most people in the real world too, unless they have subscribed to some notion of "good" outside of themselves- i.e. religion, the law, etc. The people in the INFORMERS have been placed outside of the usual social constructs of good, however, because they are famous (The Rock Star), wealthy (William and Laura), beautiful (Graham, Martin, Christie), losers (Jack and his uncle), observers (Carole) or liars (Tim) and so now they must struggle to find a new morality- which is hard when you're living in a society that doesn't appreciate thinking for yourself and if anything encourages everyone to look, act and think the same. There is a reason why almost all the outsiders in the movie are brunettes. There is also a reason why they are almost always the most thoughtful, sympathetic people in the story (Raymond, Rachel, Nina, and even Susan is clearly a bottle blonde starting to let her roots show). This movie is about people who have been conforming/buying into the game, but who are waking up to realize (mostly too late) what they may have lost for doing so. Some of them are even trying to warn us. That's where the title comes from.
The technical parts of the movie are hard to fault. It looks beautiful and the dialogue and scenes move with a sleek economy, reduced to the bare bones of what each character, scene, story needs. Perhaps people don't realize this is a drama because it's not overblown like most Hollywood dramas. There are no big speeches. There are no tears. There are few breakdowns. But there often aren't in real life, especially amongst people who are not good at being in touch with their feelings. And if these people were good at being in touch with their feelings, chances are the stuff that happens to them, wouldn't be happening.
The movie isn't flawless. There is a scene between Rachel and Les in the book that I would have loved to see included. Carole's story feels a bit too abbreviated and could have used one more scene of closure. Susan's escape on the train from LA would have been a nice way to bring a bit more balance to the bleakness of the film. A male on male kiss would have been nice, though I applaud the film for being as up front as it was with the bisexuality and in the book there are no gay sex scenes so I can understand the choice to avoid them in the movie- especially if you consider the implication that any tenderness between Graham and Martin is something they are hoping to ignore themselves. In the end, though, these flaws are really just a wish list because I wanted to see more of this story and these people; there are no missteps in the film itself, from my perspective. And maybe it's best that we don't get more; as the final image of Christie on the beach, waiting for death, tells us: ignorance is often its own kind of bliss.
Slither (2006)
Fun Little Film in the Comedic Horror Tradition
I'm surprised this movie hasn't done better at the box office, and yet I'm really not that surprised: good horror, let alone good horror/comedy, is probably lost on most of America's teenagers, and that seems to be the only crowd that goes to movies these days- how else do you justify the terrible remake of THE FOGG? Still, this movie is so fun I would have imagined that it could have found a broader audience, though maybe some people can't get past the slithery monsters and copious stage blood. Certainly I'm glad I can, because I was really entertained and even fairly impressed with the writing and character work- so many modern films, let alone horror movies, seem to have forgotten that any story begins with its characters; thankfully this one didn't. Elizabeth Banks and Nathan Fillon are great as the hero and heroine, if only because she plays everything with such utter sincerity and you genuinely like her, and he provides enough of a jaded contrast that you find yourself relating to him, almost as if he was designed to be the audiences "in" to the strange events of the movie. Kudos to the writers for providing two very strong female characters and also for the token lesbian whose sexuality is handled in such a subdued, off-hand manner it's almost miss-able and thus becomes that rarity in Hollywood: an incidental gay character who isn't a total stereotype. More props to the make-up and special effects crews for some very gruesome and totally fun affects, and last but not least, a big gold star to whoever conceived the zombie deer- that was the moment I knew I was in love with this film.
The Phantom of the Opera (2004)
I Really Liked This Movie...
So, I usually don't qualify my reviews, but this movie is sort of special, and the comments I've read are from all over the map so I feel I should give some idea of where I'm coming from too.
I've been an playwrite, actor, and director for years, with work of mine have been doing both domestically and internationally, and having appeared in plays both amateur and professional and every level in between, including a professional opera and many a musical: whenever I watch anything, I approach it on three levels: artist, critic and audience. Also, I grew up seeing shows on Broadway, both mega-musicals and little indy plays in the Village, and while generally speaking my tastes lean more towards "arty and indy", I do have a broader pallet and it would be more accurate to say that my real interest is piqued by anything that is genuinely good at being what it is- which is one way of describing "Phantom of the Opera." Because yes, it's not as complec and intelligent as the work of Sondheim, or Kander and Ebb, but for what it sets out to be, an enthralling and absorbing Gothic romance (a genre that is rarely done well on stage, let alone as a musical), it achieves on every level: the score (which is soaring and crashing and large, just like the emotions of the characters who sing it), the design (ornate and overwhelming and grand guigol to the hilt), the story (which is totally ridiculous on some level, but since gothicism and romance are both genres which celebrate the extremes of our minds and imaginations, this is totally appropriate). "Phantom" is a brilliant example of art where the content and the style of the rendering of that content fit each other to a tea, and while it may not be YOUR cup of tea I sort of feel that anyone who thinks it's crap has basically missed the point or is just sour grapes because the thing is so damn popular and so damn good at being what it is (and lets face it, it's hard not to resent a success sometimes). Genius is often ridiculed, especially genius of an unusual nature or in a somewhat unconventional field (and Gothic romance, be it novel, film or musical, is looked down on in general, usually for the very qualities that make it interesting) and Webber's work is genius, because "Phantom" is, for all its faults, tightly written, a brilliant balance of camp, melodrama, satire and fairy tale, and while the style of music might not work for each listener, it effectively illuminates the story and conveys what is most important about the characters: their titantic (albeit, somewhat simple-minded) emotions, desires, fears and obsessions.
*SPOILERS*
The movie, in my opinion, takes what is best about the play and does it even better. Though some of my favorite bits from the stage show (the rehearsal of Don Jaun where the piano plays itself, Raoul's part in "Wondering Child") are gone, they have been dropped in favor of brilliant improvements, namely having the chandelier crash at the conclusion of the film (it really brings the whole thing full circle), and allowing more glimpses of Paris 1917, finally explaining why it is Raoul returns, what happens to the Phantom, etc. Other good bits that we see now but never saw onstage: an affectionate moment between Meg and Madame Giry, some history of the Phantom, a deeper sense of what Meg may know or not know about the Phantom's presence, the stalking of Josephe Bouquet, the life of the underclass of the opera house, the Hall of Mirrors from the book, etc. Also, the music has been beautifully re-orchestrated, and never sounded better. I'll take orchestra over canned synths, any day, thank you.
The cinematography is beautiful and the "opera" moments are well done- complete with the cornball, almost intrusive dancing and vibrant but totally unrealistic sets and costumes that characterized "grand opera" at the time. The sense of constant claustrophobia back stage is great, and adds to that sense of what it was like to live and work in this tiny world where everyone is a performer and half your wardrobe comes from the costume department (did anyone else catch that moment where Christine takes her dress from the wardrobe?), adding to the central question at "Phantom's" core- what (who) is real, and what (who) is an illusion- and is real preferable to illusion, or vice-vera? The bleedingly bright colors and deep shadows of the movie help echo all of this- reminding us always, this story is not real, hero on white charger and all, but we don't want it to be: it's a legend, it's a fairy tale, it's a farce... it's a masquerade. It's, as the Auctioneer says, "a strange affair." "Phantom" told and acted realistically, totally wouldn't work, so don't ask it to, or judge it that way.
The best thing about this movie is the performances, and the director has done a wonderful thing by moving AWAY from Michael Crawford and Sarah Brightman, both of whom gave role defining performances, neither of which are any more "correct" than any other. The question isn't, are Butler and Rossum as good as their predecessors, but rather do their versions of the characters work, and the answer is: yes. Return to "Phantom" as a text, not as a show with a history, and you'll see that Christine is supposed to be dreamy, lost, emotionally unstable and young, just as Rossum plays and sings the role. Butler, with his harsher singing and deeper range, is much more believable as a madman who is sometimes pathetic and pitable, but still ultimately a deranged egomaniac who lives underground and makes wax statues of the woman he loves. The rest of the cast is equally good, with Minnie Driver giving a heroically hysterical performance, Jennifer Ellison combining strength and curiosity with innocence and a certain grounded quality (I've always believed the audience is ultimately supposed to identify with Meg, who is the only character who never panics and maintains a healthy sense of "reality) that contrasts nicely with Rossum's morbid dreaminess, and Patrick Wilson doing much more with Raoul than any of the actors I've seen on stage. I wish Simon Callow had had more to do, but such is life- at least he was there. Miranda Richardson continues to prove she can play anything, and conveying more with a look than most actresses can with a full script of dialogue. Her accent is totally brilliant: it sets her apart, makes her glamorous and mysterious, and at the same time, is another sly tongue in cheek reminder that what we are watching should only be believed to a point: it is, after all, just another version of beauty and the beast.
Enigma (2001)
Dry But Fun Little Movie With Good Actors in Good Hats
Tom Stoppard is a brilliant man and a very good writer who gets more excited by ideas than people, so while I always find his plays and films challenging to the mind (and that's always a nice feeling), I rarely find them humanly/emotionally satisfying. The big exception has always been his beautiful stageplay ARCADIA, which does a good job of being both brainy as hell and deeply evocative at the same time. ENIGMA has the same problems that TRAVESTIES and ROSENCRANTZ AND GUILDENSTERN ARE DEAD have, namely that I spend a lot of time marvelling at the cleverness of it all but end up walking away with a mind full of word games and historical/literary revisions to muddle over, but very little sense that anything of vital importance has happened either to the characters or to myself in the audience- and considering this movie is basically about how the Allies won WW2, that's really saying something. Dryness aside, this is a good movie, small but charming, funny and with just enough action to keep you invested in the central plotline even if the characters are a little flat (albeit, very amiable) and there seem to be a few too many spy movie cliches for it all to be taken seriously in places. Kate Winslet is very good, I'm always happy to see such a talented and healthy looking (can you believe they called her "fat" in a review in my home town- hello, women are *supposed* to have curves and breasts and such) actress getting good roles and plenty of work. Saffron Burrows was fairly flat but her character had little to do or say, so no small loss there (still, I bet Kristin Scott Thomas would have found a way to fly with that role). Jeremy Northam was simply incredible, very sly and very sexy and making even his most "oh boy, this is the part where the sly and sexy detective does/says this" moments so much fun I just couldn't help thinking "Hey, despite that huge nasty war and all the genocide, I wish I lived in the 40's so I could be a sly and sexy detective with good hats." All in all a good film, worth seeing if you like your movies heavy on the thinking side, though maybe a little deficient in the heart & soul.
The Shining (1980)
One of the Best Horror Movies Ever!
...and definitely the best movie Stanley Kubrick ever made. Beautiful, haunting, very subtle but brilliantly explicit when it needs to be, this film is a great balance of suspense and revelation, build and pay-off. The sense of tension and claustrophobia that pervades the movie is absolutely incredible and the constant, seething supernaturalism is so eerie, so overpowering, you find yourself getting scared by nothing half the time. The ghosts are very well done- totally unsettling and clearly unearthly while at the same time lacking things like dripping ecotoplasm or other stupid, heavy-handed and fairly typical Hollywood touches. Unlike most of Kubrick's other movies, the characters here are well fleshed out (maybe that's because, for a change, there is so few of them)and all the actors really put in stellar performances. Nicholson's legendary psychotic is of course, the show stealer, but Shelley Duvall carries her role very well, a powerful combination of vulnerability and hidden strength, she moves through the movie like wounded, frightened animal but still makes her moments of ingenuity and courage totally believable. Danny Lloyd is very believable and never precious- so rare among child actors. Many of the smaller roles are also well played- Anne Jackson, in particular, is very convincing and the scene between her and Duvall where Wendy casually reveals Jack's history of abuse and alcoholism is one of the best examples of the subtle strength of this film: Duvall's fluttery, nervous smile screaming evidence of a darker, deeper, un-talked about fear waiting to erupt and held in check by a very, very delicate boundary. All in all, a brilliant film, chilling and enthralling and practically perfect in every way.
2001: A Space Odyssey (1968)
In Space Everything Is... Very, Very Slow...
I do not understand the appeal of this movie. Yes, it's beautiful to look at, and at the time the special effects must have been absolutely dazzling because they're still pretty good by today's standards, but man oh man this seriously might be the dullest film I have ever seen. Don't get me wrong, I like long movies, and my attention span is definitely not short, but there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING driving this film: no plot, no characters, no revelations, no statements, no themes. It's like an absence of experience... except the experience of watching perfectly shot but painstakingly slow models and people moving through cool looking but not-cool-enough-to-just-look-at-forever starscapes and spaceship sets. As is often the case with Kubrick movies (THE SHINING be a big exception, and thus brilliant), there is virtually no character development or depth, but in this film even the actors seem to be moving through a daze where they can't register emotions or be any more interesting than the auteur's concept so you can't even enjoy this film for the performances- which mind you, aren't bad, just totally non-existant, as if they were afraid of detracting, somehow, from all the really slow moving models of space stations. Ultimately that sentiment sums up my feelings about this movie as a whole: not bad, certainly there seems to be some merit because everything is so pretty and done with such seriousness, but finally, in the end, there isn't really anything to enjoy here or latch onto- even the wonderment of space seems sort of lackluster once all the trippy visuals begin and then the movie segues into a lame, psuedo-mysterious ending. You never really care about the people being presented- what happens to them, what they're thinking about, etc- and thus, it's really hard to care about the ideas, let alone the virtually non-existant and mostly unexplained story. Good art should make you care- be that in a positive or negative way- and this movie just leaves me totally cold. It's beautiful, but utterly and totally hollow, glossed over with a heavy dose of dull.
Hedwig and the Angry Inch (2001)
Gut-wrenching, Witty, Exhillerating and Lovely
This movie kicks so much butt I can't believe it didn't even get nominated for Best Musical at the Golden Globes. Hell, unlike MOULON ROUGE, it at least had original songs, so it should have gotten some attention. Speaking of those songs, they are all fantastic, from the lovely and lyrically brilliant "Origin of Love," to the raunchy "Angry Inch," the exhillerating and uplifting "Midnight Radio" and the side-splittingly funny "Wig In A Box". Of course, John Cameron Mitchell has much to do with this: his performance and vocals are amazing, and while I liked Ewan McGregor and Nicole Kidman's performances, Mitchell and Miriam Shor win my vote for singing on-screen couple of the year. Stephen Trask (whose career as a composer/lyricist is hopefully going to rocket to stardom after this), Andrea Martin and Alberta Watson all provide strong and memorable supporting performances, while Michael Pitt manages to be both vaguely annoying, in a Vincent Gallo/Trent Reznor way, while still being oddly endearing and vulnerable- exactly what he needs to be. I've never seen the stage play so I have no idea how it compares, but the script moves beautiful from one stage of Hansel/Hedwig's life to the next and the friendly, amiable manner in which it is shot and directed makes the film's strange characters totally relateable, their personal desires and agony very real and close to home. This movie is ultimatelty, in addition to being fun and full of good music, extremely powerful, both as a story of one man's long journey to finally accepting his own masculinity, and as an exploration of how music allows an individual to experiment with both self-concealment and self-revelation. The characters are beautifully 3 dimensional, and it ultimately provides that musical theater catharsis that MOULON ROUGE dropped in exchange for a schmaltzy, weepy ending too corny to be acceptable. It's a shame that the subject matter and lack of big stars will probably keep this movie in the cult and art house circuit, because it's some of the best and most exciting film making- and rock and roll- I've encountered in years.
El espinazo del diablo (2001)
Intriguing, Satisfying little Ghost Story
Frankly, the most amazing thing about this movie is that the director also made "Mimic" (which granted, wasn't awful- but it wasn't brilliant either). Really enjoyed the story- very well structured and appropriately paced- and all the performances, down to the bit parts. Very few big scares but a general ambiance of genuine creepiness and desloateness which is actually much harder to produce- old school gothic in nature instead of today's more common hack and slash shock fests. Much more subtle than "The Others" and infinitely more complete in its explorations of themes and characters. It's unflinching portrayal of the horror of physical violence- without ever being exploitive- was also commendable. Ghosts are scary, but the people in this movie are much scarrier, and the horror rises not out of the supernatural, but out of the natural's surprising ability to become exceedingly unnatural. Overall, a well made and enjoyable film, if perhaps a little unsettling.
The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (2001)
Ballsy, Beautiful, Engaging, Exciting, Profound, Smart, Satisfying
I am not someone who uses adjectives like those lightly. I'm very much a discerning film viewer,have spent my life working in and studying the arts and literature, and have little to no love for the average Hollywood mediocrity, be it the sad attempt at social profundity known as AMERICAN BEAUTY, the latest marketing masterplan like HARRY POTTER, or the annual exercises in macheesmo, like GLADIATOR and BRAVEHEART. That said, I love this movie, because it has everything the big blockbuster is supposed to have- action, romance, brilliant visuals- plus everything I've come to only expect in indie and foreign film- truly complex characters and plot lines, genuine respect for the brains of its audience, conviction in it's themes and story, and an overall emotional strength and consistency that leaves one haunted by the film for days. Of course I know that Tolkein's monumental novel shares much of the credit, but film is a completely different medium than literature and has many different objectives and problems that need to be overcome and so the movie is Jackson and company's baby- and they deserve it. It is one of the most successful literary adaptions I've seen since James Ivory's A ROOM WITH A VIEW, in the sense that it succeeds in becoming a brilliant movie in and of itself, as well as maintaining the spirit, story and themes of the original novel. Pulling off such a feat isn't easy- observe such failures as THE SCARLET LETTER, or DUNE for examples of how NOT to adapt a famous novel.
OF course the movie isn't flawless- Arwen's plea for Frodo to live (just after she's squelched the Nazgul- a totally viable change, I think, in light of the fact that Glorfindel does nothing else in the novel and Arwen, whose story is essential, desperately needed something to expand her into what a modern audience would consider an acceptable mate for Aragorn)is so schmaltzy and gooey that it stands out in an otherwise fascinateingly gloomy film flooded with complex emotions. Also, the almost complete lack of Gollum was a little disquieting, and will probably bite the filmmakers on the ass later on when Golem becomes so essential in part two and everyone in the audience who hasn't read the book goes, "What? He's been following them all along? Who is that slimy thing?" I mean, come on Jackson, all it would have take was two more well placed shots of Gollum trailing the Fellowship, just for continuity's sake.
But really, stuff like this is so nitpicky, and proof that this movie is so amazing- especially compared to similar films in the genre, like the new STAR WARS films. LORD OF THE RINGS succeeds where PHANTOM MENACE, for instance, ultimately fails: Middle Earth is so tangible, it's denizens so believable, that you really do believe in it and get caught up. Superbe attention to details- from close up shots of people's hands that were ACTUALLY DIRTY, to houses and gardens and skyscapes that were real and not computer created, to ornate belt buckles, bootheals and arrowheads- permeates the film, creating a rich, almost tangible world. The special affects are totally tasteful and mostly reserved for the Ringwraith's world, which is appropriately spooky and alien. True, the Troll seemed just a touch too CGI, compared to everything els, but he looked a hell of a lot better than the centaur in HARRY POTTER, which didn't even look like the animators finished before the film went to print.
Performances also make this movie amazing- because normally, directors and producers of special affects ridden adventure epics don't feel that the actors need to be good so much as pretty and famous- but these actors are all amazing, and if they were famous before this film, they were generally people famous for being generally amazing- Ian McKellan (a fantastic choice as Gandalf), Ian Holm (genuinely touching and riddled with pathos), Cate Blanchette (celestially beautiful and a wonderful combination of infinite power and infinite sadness), Christopher Lee (spectacularly evil). Viggo Mortensen (so good in PORTRAIT OF A LADY) finally gets a chance to shine, and Sean Bean gives his best performance to date- as does Liv Tyler, my only real casting fear before seeing the film who does a surprisingly good job. Elija Wood and Sean Astin both come of age in this movie and considering what the future holds for Frodo and Sam, I can't wait to see how they actors will grow with the characters. Orlando Bloom and Jean Rhys Davies provide wonderful supporting performances, and also make me look forward to the future which brings, amongst many other things, masisve expansion of their characters.
What works the best about LORD OF THE RINGS, however, is not the effects and design, or the actors, but the sheer scope of the film, it's overwhelming sense of trying to fight for the good in the face of exponentially increasing evil and terror, and it's fierce rejection of the sugary, feel good HARRY POTTER syndrome. True, some people might be disastisfied with the ending, but the whole point is that this is hardly the end (and if the ending of the film of TWO TOWERS is like the book, people are gonna be REALLY disappointed come December 2002), and if the same people find the movie too depressing, my only reponse is- too bad. A) it's going to get more depressing before the happy ending (and hey, isn't life often like that?) and B) if you can't find the beauty of heroes remaining heroic even in spite of growing doom and gloom, then it must be generally hard for you to find beauty at all. And since LORD OF THE RINGS, both the book and the movie, is mostly about the incredible endurance of that which is good being able to survive that which is evil, it's no small wonder this film will be lost on an audience grown accustomed to easy endings, easy solutions, and easy emotions.
And hey, the movie made me want to write a fantasy novel, propose marriage to someone incredible, and kill some orcs. It's been a while since any movie has made me want to do that.
Swoon (1992)
intriguing, puzzeling and yet satisfying film
"Swoon" is an enigmatic, sometimes almost inaccessible film that I continue to find oddly emotionally satisfying, even after having seen it at least a dozen times. An intentionally chaotic jumble of images and brilliance, speckled with anachronisms, sly winks at the camera, stock footage and allegorical sound affects, the film functions more like an avante-garde stage play than a typical movie- and yet it remains very cinematic, very engaging despite being occasionally cryptic, and very emotionally powerful- even surprisingly romantic in places- even though there is clearly a satiric and dry bent to the director's vision. Like a good Hal Hartley film, there is an intelligent handling of deep, dark emotions here, and for it's direct but never sensational treatment of massochism and obsession, I am incredibley thankful and eternally enlightened- I sort of wish would-be auteurs of the psychosexual (i.e. David Lynch) would take a cue from this strange but excellent little movie.
Priest (1994)
Excellent Film
PRIEST is one of those movies that is so surrounded by controversy, few people ever remember to evaluate it purely as art, which is a shame because it's really an incredible film. As a writer, I was blown away the first time I saw this movie because the script is so excellent: every character in the film, from the lead priest to the maid, seems to have something at stake in the plot, be it religious morals, sexual happiness, love, personal fulfillment, honesty, duty or physical safety. The characters grow out of the situation in a way that's surprisingly organic in today's movie scene, where often the plot seems to be incidental to the characters, or vice versa. Regardless of your take on the issues, I think you have to admire that they are being presented, not just talked about, and the film does an excellent job of balancing both the potential enormousness of the questions it raises, and the intimate, personal nature of its story. After the script, another reason to love PRIEST is the performances: it is one of those few movies where absolutely everyone is excellent, from Roache and Wilkinson, down to bit players like the irate Housekeeper at the priest retreat and the young reporter who tries to corner Roache after his hearing. The film is shot very well, especially considering they could have gotten away with a fairly straightforward point and shoot: but no, we got so amazingly well framed shots of the North Sea, England in winter, industrial vistas... And yes, whether you agree with its stance or not, kudos to the movie for taking a plethora of tough subjects like homosexuality, religious guilt, incest and life on earth vs. life in heaven, and dealing with them in a mature and often compassionate manner (as opposed to say, the way Kevin Smith deals with them in DOGMA). All in all, an excellent film. Watch it with an open mind, and a keen artistic eye.
The Haunting (1963)
Brilliant, intelligent and very, very scary
Anyone who has seen the recent Jan de Bonte remake of this classic has, hopefully, gained an all new appreciation for this wonderful, chilling movie. While the Liam Neeson-Catherine Zeta Jones spectacle was only horrifying in the sense of how much money it must have cost to make and thus waste, the original thriller is captivating, spooky and a glowing example of how all a movie really needs in the end is an excellent script, excellent performances, and an attentive cinematic eye on the part of the camera. While de Bonte's glitzy and extremely not scary movie tried to win its audience over with a billion special affects that all ended up looking like a bus plowing through a house, this creepy classic capitalizes off the power of suggestion, using shadows and sound effects, never resorting to gore or cheap shots, like having someone's head bit off, or an incredibely fake looking ghost chasing someone. Here's something else exciting too: the original makes sense, as opposed to the new one, where you find yourself asking questions like, if I was an evil child murderer whose spirit was trapped in the house, why would I have a gateway to purgatory built where I could easily be tricked into getting sucked into it shortly after some bad actress gives me a worthless and trite speach on family values? Good script, good camera work, awesome sound affects and performances (especially from Claire Bloom and Russ Tamblyn)... if you're looking for a good horror movie, check this one out (and read the book too- I promise you'll be up the rest of the night, wondering why you never noticed how clanky the kitchen pipes are).
Alice (1990)
Can it be?
A Woody Allen film I actually like, besides MIGHTY APHRODITE? Why, so it is! Charming, clever, and oddly sentimental as opposed to the neurotic, annoying and appallingly sexist non-movies that Woody Allen usually churns out, ALICE ranks as my favorite Woody Allen film ever... Mia Farrow turns in her best performance ever (after voicing THE LAST UNICORN that is) and her supporting cast fleshes out this potentially not interesting assortment of Woody Allen types. William Hurt and Alec Baldwin, in particular give fine performances, and Bernadette Peters is a scream for the five minutes of screen time Allen gives her (I'd like to say something about both Blythe Danner and Judy Davis, who are two fine actresses, but it's hard when they basically do nothing in the movie). The re-enactment of Farrow and Hurt's first date is a brilliant, beautiful moment that actually makes it kind of sad they can't work things out in the end- and also makes Farrow's final achievment of emotional independence so much more satisfying. While I don't think the movie is a bold statement on feminism, I do think it's a surprisingly mature depiction of women as far as Woody Allen goes- at the very least, they're attracted to attractive men as opposed to well... people like him, or Michael Caine. Anyway, worth checking out if you're in the mood for a quiet little piece of light-hearted romantic fantasy.
High Spirits (1988)
cute and funny...
...and surprisingly not hampered by two of the worst actors ever, Daryl Hannah, and Steve Gutenberg. Peter O'Toole and Beverly d'Angelo give great performances and Jennifer Tilly, Liam Neeson and Peter Gallagher all show up for five minutes, which combined with the well chosen setting, fairly witty dialogue and charming concept, tip my vote from five to six stars. By no means a brilliant movie, either as comedy or horror, but not a bad rental, especially around Halloween time and if, like me, you enjoy ghost stories of every variety.
In the Flesh (1998)
worthy of watching
This film is by no means perfect: the script is a little loose, some of the performances are uninspired, and some of the characters are a little flat. The cinemetography is barely more than functional. But you don't see a movie like this expecting quick cuts and wacky camera angles, special affects and/or lovingly photographed scenery and people. I'm not a big fan of gritty realism, but this movie was extremely intelligent and sensetive in its handling of potentially ugly people and a potentially vulgar, trashy scenario/storyline: that alone sets it apart from about ninety percent of the "gay" cinema that I have seen. Taylor handles his subjects well, and while this is no groundbreaking work of film, it is consistently and appropriately crafted throughout. Points to the women of the film for turning in excellent performances all around, and to Ed Corbin for the way he deftly handled the moment he asks Oliver if he can just hold him: it was totally believable, and you could see everything this guy had to go through to make such a request. Also, a fantastic, beautiful, haunting soundtrack that I really wish I could find on CD. All in all, a worthy effort, worth checking out.
Shallow Grave (1994)
a nice, wicked movie
This is one of my ten favorite films, and the best of the Danny Boyle, John Hodge collaborations. Kerry Fox, Ewan McGregor and Christopher Eccleston all give wonderful performances. The screenplay is a little abrupt in places, but the dialogue is so excellent and smooth that I'm never thrown out of the piece for a moment, even when motivations seem to be lacking (the big question is, why don't they just report the body in the first place, and not the cash? we still could have had the two bad guys show up looking for Hugo, have them get bumped off and then have David go crazy because of that... i.e. we still could have had a good movie that didn't make such a huge leap of faith right off the bat). The best thing about this wonderful little film is the style- the colors, the camera angles, the music... it all works well to create a constant sense of tension, suspense, and psychological unravel, and Boyle's pacing beautifully moves the story along to its brilliant, deeply satisfying conclusion.
The Silence of the Lambs (1991)
a genuinely scary, excellently crafted masterpiece
This film scared the crap out of me the first time I saw it, and considering how many horror/suspense films I had seen by that point, that's no small matter. At the same time I was giving my nervous system a workout, I was sitting there in awe of how well written the film was, how excellently defined and sketched all the characters were, how intellectually challenging the piece was, and how unbelievably good Jodie Foster and Anthony Hopkins performances were- thank God they both won Oscars. Frankly, I was disappointed to learn that there would be a sequel, as I think this film, and its story, stand so well on their own and need no elaboration. As excellent and terrifying as JAWS, only with people... which is somehow even scarier, once you really start to think about. I worry the sequels will run the way of JAWS 2, 3D, and THE REVENGE.
Psycho Beach Party (2000)
Brilliant Film
I love this movie. It's different, plot and character-wise, from the play it's based on (which is also very good), but the film was so true to the spirit, themes, style and integrity of the original that I enjoyed the changes rather than resent them. I attribute this to Charles Busch adapting his own text to the screen. He also plays a great Monica Stark, a character sadly missing from the stageplay along with Matt Keesler's hysterical Lars and Kathleen Robertson's bitingly wicked Rhonda. The rest of the cast is consistently excellent, with Nicholas Brendon, Amy Adams, Kimberly Davies, Nick Cornish and Andrew Levitas all having beautiful, show stealing moments. Danni Wheeler is a great Berdine (the only character I felt slightly cheated of, as she is much more important and much funnier in the play) and Lauren Ambrose should get an Oscar nod for her performance, were satire a genre ever acknowledged by institutions such as the Academy Awards. Sadly, that oversight probably characterizes exactly how this witty, decadent and ballsy film is being received: more intelligent and honest than the majority of stupid box-office smash comedies (like NUTTY PROFESSOR and so forth), more original and uncompromised than the majority of mainstream movies for young people (like SHE'S ALL THAT and so forth), PSYCHO BEACH PARTY will doubtless be overlooked, misunderstood and/or hated by half of the American populace who, sadly, just won't get it or worse- be repulsed, and/or afraid of it.
The Scarlet Letter (1995)
this movie has to be seen to be believed
I am not a fan of the Hawthorne novel- frankly, the whole story could have been said in thirty pages as opposed to a hundred and fifty, and I don't think I'd be terribly interested in the thirty page version either- but if there's anyone out there who likes this movie as anything more than an extremely funny example of Hollywood at it's stupidest, then I genuinely fear for the futures of film and literature(let alone criticism) in this country. This movie is such a desecration of the book that it should have been retitled. The novel's most interesting character- Pearl- is reduced to a silent, annoyingly helpless baby, while the novel's token witch character (who appears on less than ten pages of the book) is blown into some sad attempt at a strong, outspoken woman (or something), terribly played by Joan Plowright at her chin quivering, blank-eyed worst. Much more offensive is the inclusion of a new character, Matuba (whose name and actions are shockingly similar to that of Tituba in Arthur Miller's THE CRUCIBLE), who has nothing to do with the story and seems to exist solely to be embarrassing to watch- a function much better filled by Demi Moore as a blazingly mis-cast, busty Hester Prynne, magically transformed by blind and sexist Hollywood anachronism into a gun-wielding, lace wearing, convention breaking bimbo who occasionally spouts vaguely feminist tripe to remind us we're sharing in a story of courage and individuality in a dark time (or something). Robert Duvall continues to be one of my least favorite actors on the planet and Gary Oldman continues to solicit my pity for a man with so much talent but obviously not when it comes to picking his projects. Whoever made this movie (be it an individual or a gang of armani suit wearing studio execs who were hoping to cash a quick buck on the good old "adapt a classic and cast a star band wagon") is obviously devoid of any sense of literature, history, drama, filmmaking and (most importantly): taste. The only good thing I can say about this terrible film is that it's fun as hell to watch- for all the wrong reasons- especially if you've read the book and want to know where all those witches and slaves and attacking Native Americans come from.
Bombay Talkie (1970)
Visually Compelling, Well-Acted and Unique
I don't know of many films that explore behind the scenes of the prolific Indian film industry, but I love the view into a new world offered by this one. In general, I like the films of Merchant-Ivory- they are almost always beautiful, well-crafted, well-acted and excellent at handling delicate subject matter, subtle emotions, and stories of character growth and psychology. I think BOMBAY TALKIE is one of the best, on par with the later triumphs of A ROOM WITH A VIEW, HOWARD'S END and REMAINS OF THE DAY. Visually, the movie has that stunning, crisp, breath-taking combination of color, light and space that made every frame of A ROOM WITH A VIEW so wonderful to watch- and the beauty of the film's (BOMBAY TALKIE)visuals are especially nice considering it was made in 1970. The use of music, singing and dance also bring an interesting quirkiness to the film, and help present the world of the characters- all of whom are interesting, especially the hero, his wife Marla (who gives a stunning performance), and his ex-girlfriend (the scene between her and the hero, once Lucia has left him to follow a guru, is one of the most beautifully executed late night conversation scenes I've ever seen, and gives so much insight into a relatively insignificant character's life and relationships- on par with the drinking scene in Hal Hartley's SIMPLE MEN). Most fantastic about this film was the screenplay- one of Ruth Prawer Jbvala's better ones, well-directed (as usual) by James Ivory. It is poetic, when it needs to be, sinister when the moment calls for it, and it ties nicely into the ending with excellent stops along the way to comment on Hollywood film making, sham-spiritualism quests by Westerners in India, the loneliness of art, the stupidity of petty, fear-controlled people, and the destructive quality of unhealthy obsession. A fine, enjoyable film, not at all dated, not for everyone by any means, but worth looking into if you're interested in seeing something different.
The Usual Suspects (1995)
a really good throwback to film noir...
In the midst of the film noir revival that seems to have been sparked by the success of PULP FICTION, THE USUAL SUSPECTS turns out to be a really, really good movie with a strong script and strong performances. Most impressive, however, is the style in which it is filmed- it truly is a work of film noir, bested only by SWOON in it's deft handling of sticky, dark subject material, unlikely and unlikeable heroes, black humor and ultimately disturbing, edgy portraits of violence and the psychology of violence. Though in color, it still manages to maintain that dark, oppressive feeling of shadows and depression so essential to films of this nature, and the ending, even if you're not surprised (or someone told you what it was before you saw the film- as happened to me)is incredibly well executed and totally satisfying.