jemmytee Reviews

Shock to the System (2006)

Above average but could have been better if they'd wanted it to be.

[7/10 · 11 August 2008]

A young man caught up in some "ex-gay" therapy organization asks PI Donald Strachey to find someone, slams a check in his hand for $5000 then winds up dead from an apparent overdose before he can tell the detective who he's looking for. Strachey suspects foul play and investigates the charismatic leader of the local anti-gay therapy group to see if they had something to do with the kid's death. Sure enough, secrets are exposed and more death comes and clues pile up and a little luck helps Donald in the end.

I wish I could say I loved this little murder mystery, but "Shock to the System" is one of those projects that could have been so damn good in the hands of people who really cared. And I'm not referring to the actors. Chad Allen gives a fine, sometimes heartbreaking performance as Strachey. He's given able backup by Sebastian Spence as his life-partner and Nelson Wong as his new secretary with an attitude about his title. Even Morgan Fairchild does nicely with a thankless role.

But director Ron Oliver and writer Ron McGee offer up such perfunctory work, and cinematographer C. Kim Miles lights everything at night so minimally that you can't see half of what's going on, you wind up with incoherent shots and second rate staging and a plot that has things happen because they have to happen at that point for the story to move along. I know this is supposed to be a noir-ish flick, with nods to "The Maltese Falcon" and "The Big Sleep" and "Out of the Past" and all that, but it's done without any sense of style, meaning or even a hint of passion to it. Compare the plots of those great movies to this one, and it comes across as written by a 13 year old.

From here be spoilers so read not further if you don't want to know.

Consider the murder of Larry, who was helping Strachey's client, Paul Hale. The guy's been invisible for days. Strachey can't find him. Nobody's seen him. But finally he surfaces in a place where it would be hard to get to him. He has just enough time to fill Strachey in on what was going on and drop an important clue when the lights go out. Strachey goes looking to see what's up, pistol drawn. And the killer kills Larry then has a shootout with Strachey and gets away. It wasn't just clumsily written and staged, it was absurd. How could the killer know Larry was there unless Stachey lead them there? How would the killer know Strachey would go the wrong way down the corridor to give said killer a chance to kill the kid? And if the killer DIDN'T know Strachey was there, how did they know to be there at the exact right time to find Larry? None of this is explained in the end. In fact, the final explanation makes no logical sense, not even when dealing with a warped mind. It was nearly insulting.

BUT...and this is a big one...the script does delve somewhat into the question of ex-gay therapy and its philosophical and moral meaning. And the questions such people can raise, even in a relatively well-adjusted gay man -- like what would life had been like if I hadn't been gay? For raising those issues and for the lead actors, I give it a 7...which is above average, but it really could have been so much better if the director and writer and DP had really cared.

Mamma Mia! (2008)

Cotton candy no good for tummy but sometimes good for heart

[7/10 · 19 July 2008]

I never saw "Mamma Mia!", the play. Never cared one way or the other about ABBA -- though I did enjoy how neatly their music fit "Priscilla, Queen of the Desert." And I understand that in a musical, all you need in the way of a story is just enough to link the production numbers. So I wasn't planning to go see this movie -- until I saw not only was Meryl Streep in it but also Colin Firth and Christine Baranski and Julie Walters and Stellan Skarsgard, and I'm thinking this'll either be a major train wreck or glorious fun.

The story's simple -- as it should be. Girl lives on fantasy island but don't know who daddy is. Invites three likely candidates to her wedding but doesn't tell mom. All three come and chaos ensues...along with big production numbers and lots of joy and laughter after all the tears.

Well -- it wasn't glorious fun, but I left the theater smiling and humming the music. And that's despite Phyllida Lloyd's nearly catastrophic turn as director. Who the hell decided just because somebody's directed a play on a stage they know how to direct a movie? Her clumsiness came damn close to ruining the film...as did the editor, who really must have been on coke at the time or else has a major case of ADD. I think it works better for a musical if you can see the numbers come together as all of a piece and not four-thousand, three-hundred and fifty seven different pieces, like they do on music videos.

But -- and this is the film's saving grace -- the actors barreled right over Ms. Lloyd's mistakes and blasted through the jittery editing to provide performances that can be intoxicating. Meryl was fun and sexy and actually decent as a singer, and Christine and Julie backed her up, bigtime, in the musical numbers -- turning "Dancin' Queen" into an anthem of GRRL power and memories of youth was beautiful. I was shocked at Pierce Brosnan's tinny voice; he's Irish, for pity's sake, and don't ALL Irishmen sing beautifully? But he has charisma to spare and his charm made up for it. Same for Colin Firth and Stellan in thankless roles. It shows what not only talent but experience and professionalism can do with a bad script and characterizations. Amanda Seyfried and Dominic Cooper -- they're pretty and have nice voices, but they still have a lot to learn about commanding a screen.

Overall, however, this was a pleasant experience and I did not want any part of my $12 back. It was like going to a carnival and seeing all the sights and eating too much popcorn and cotton candy and getting a bit of a tummy ache...but having had a joyous time of it all, considering. If you go in with that expectation, you'll have fun, as well.

But there's no way ANYBODY'S ever gonna say this is in the same league as "Singin' In The Rain."

Hellbent (2004)

Joyously cheesy fun.

[9/10 · 12 June 2008]

A hunky slab of beef is running around on Halloween killing cute young men who're having too much fun, and he's keeping their heads as trophies in this fast-moving horror flick that was surprisingly good.

The lead character is a gay wanna-be-cop named Dylan who, despite his hunkiness, has a solid reason why he's not allowed to be a boy in blue (which I will not divulge here). He's got the needs for a surly hottie he sees outside a tattoo parlor and later during a Halloween party. But he and his friends are being stalked by said killer for not being nice to the dude in the park. And therein lies the suspense and horror.

Yeah, you pretty-much know who's gonna die by the end of act 1. Yeah, some of the acting is merely so-so. But happily, Dylan Fergus, Andrew Levitas, Matt Phillips and Hank Harris fill their roles nicely (you actually believe these guys are roomies and friends) and make you care about their fates. And Bryan Kirkwood's surly-boy still manages to draw you in, even when he's more than a little threatening. Good jobs, guys.

Paul Etheredge-Ouzts does a better job of writing the script -- the scene in the car en-route to the party was especially nice -- than he does directing. He's not bad, just not up to the level of everything else. And while the technical aspects are fine, the editing could have been tighter and the special effects a bit more special.

But honestly, considering the junk that comes out for the gay community -- trash that's little more than an excuse to get pretty boys nekkid and in bed -- this is a welcome antidote. I wish I'd seen it in a theater packed with a bunch of screaming queens, because it was joyous cheesy fun. Hey...maybe this Halloween...?

Boy Culture (2006)

A lot of pretty but not much more

[4/10 · 8 June 2008]

Well..I finally saw "Boy Culture". It's won awards and is considered a fine example of a gay-themed movie and all that, but this movie depressed me. It's just another shallow story about impossibly beautiful young men having sex with other impossibly beautiful young men while one who happens to be a "very selective" whore (whose "clients/disciples" look like a group of really nasty guys, so how he's "selective" is beyond me) is mentored by an older man who finally gets him to have real sex with him then he finds out the truth and everyone learns a life lesson, and it did little more than bore me, even with the eye candy. It came across as little more than an excuse to have half-naked guys jumping each other's bones without it actually being porn, and the story stands for nothing more than a line upon which to hang this semi-sleazy laundry.

The actors playing X, Andrew and Joey don't really fill their characters -- though Darryl Stephens does come close. Derek Magyar has one expression and one tone of voice and one hangdog aura through the whole thing; I cannot see why anyone would think he's worth the huge fees he's supposedly paid. Jonathan Trent's twink was over the top, though his near-moment of confession was nice. The best actor in the whole group was Patrick Bauchau, but to be honest he has a lot of experience behind him.

Now to be fair, I DO think all these actors have a lot of potential, it just wasn't tapped here. I think they were let down by the writing and directing. Q. Allan Brocka and Philip Pierce give the actors awkward dialog and dumb situations, and Brocka directs them in the most A-B-C way possible. In fact, the final "meet" on the stairs between X and Andrew, where they work things out, was so hysterically dumb, I actually dropped my glass of Dr. Pepper in reaction.

So I'm glad I watched this via NetFlix. If I'd paid to see it in a theater, I'd have been upset, because all we have here is a lot of pretty and not much more.

Disturbia (2007)

Shia saves the day...barely.

[4/10 · 29 March 2008]

"Disturbia" is built around a clever idea -- let's update Alfred Hitchcock's brilliant "Rear Window" to modern day, center it around a troubled teen-aged boy and place it in a nice upscale neighborhood where the veneer of life is perfect but the reality is venal and vile. And the way the premise is set up IS clever. While driving home from a fantastic fishing trip with his dad, Kale Brecht has an accident that kills his father. Feeling responsible for it, he crashes into anger and withdrawal and winds up threatened with jail. To show his leniency, the judge instead sentences Kale to house arrest, to be monitored by an ankle bracelet he cannot remove and that sounds an alarm if he goes more than 100 feet from its relay system. To top it off, his mother cancels his electronic distractions -- video games, web servers, even cuts the cord to his TV -- so all he has to keep himself occupied is spying on his neighbors, one of whom is a beautiful new girl who loves to swim in a string bikini (any teen boy's fantasy)...and another of whom he slowly comes to believe is a serial killer from Texas (cliched but cool). Great set-up with lots of potential, right?

Too bad a "clever idea" doesn't always translate into a good movie. Of course, if would help if the script by Christopher B. Landon and Carl Ellsworth wasn't lazy (hero in trouble? let's have somebody show up to cause a distraction and save him) and didn't have holes in the plot so big the QE2 could sail through them (how does a kid with no internet privileges get hold of the original blueprints for a house?). Or if it actually had some basis in reality (the entire ending borders on the ludicrous and raises questions that cannot be answered). It would also help if D J Caruso had at least some semblance of style or ability to frame a sequence so it made sense instead of just "pointing and shooting and sometimes moving at the same time and let's make it work in editing" (which was nearly flawless -- the editing, I mean).

In fact, the one true saving grace in this all-too-typical-train-wreck-of-a-modern-thriller is Shia LaBeouf. He gives Kale a depth and humanity that is not earned by how he is written. He's the only reason I give this movie ANY stars. The one other actor who comes close to achieving this is Carrie-Anne Moss, as his mother, and that's in spite of her character being little more than a cypher. Aaron Yoo and Sarah Roemer do what they can with their one-note characters, and David Morse tries...he really tries...to keep from seeming too obvious -- but none of them can overcome the stupid writing (Syd Field 101, anyone?) and ham-fisted directing.

To top all this off -- not once, anywhere in the film or credits, is any acknowledgment made of Hitchcock's masterful filming of or John Michael Hayes' brilliant script for "Rear Window." To say that's poor manners is to be kind; to me, it only adds to my sense that today's "filmmakers" are so busy being lost in their own cleverness they're ignoring the fact that they have yet to achieve even one-percent of the ability of the filmmakers of the past...and refusing to acknowledge that they could learn wonders from them if they'd just stop and think and pay attention to reality. But that's the problem with failed movies like "Disturbia" -- the guys who made it DO think they know what's going on. And that, in and of itself, really is disturbing.

No Country for Old Men (2007)

I don't get the hype over this movie.

[5/10 · 18 February 2008]

Talk about a movie not living up to its promise. I finally went to see "No Country For Old Men" because so many people were waxing eloquently about how wonderful it is and how deep and meaningful, I felt like I had to see it for myself. And while it's well-made, it's not the Coen Brothers' best or even most meaningful film. Not by a long shot.

The story is simple -- a man stumbles onto a pile of loot and decides to keep it, and all hell breaks loose, with bodies racking up left, right and sideways. And that's all there is to it. Yes, this story has wide open "Texas" landscapes (mostly shot in New Mexico) and taciturn heroes (a sheriff who's seen too much and a cowboy who thinks he's smarter than he is) and a "really nasty" villain who somehow manages to wander around with this huge cow-killer thing but not get caught by the Texas Rangers (preposterous) or even get noticed by the locals or chased or anything, even though he starts the story off by strangling a deputy fool enough to turn his back on him. Granted, this is set in 1980 and they didn't have the insta-communication we have today...but the casualness people in this movie have towards a COP BEING KILLED? In Texas?! Puh-lease! But that's just the beginning. From that point on, we're treated to a non-stop series of incidents where absurdity is piled onto ludicrous blindness and stupidity is mixed in, all in the name of making some "grand statement" about the sadness of violence and evil and Latino-devils. I sat there numbly watching this movie just keep going and going like some EveryReady Bunny ignoring its illogical storyline...and finally all I could wonder is, "Why do people think this is so damn good?" Seriously, the Coen brothers did a ten-times better version of the story in "Fargo," and nailed every point they wanted to make about violence and greed.

On the good side, Josh Brolin, Tommy Lee Jones and Kelly Macdonald did wonders with barely written roles (especially seeing as how Kelly's Scottish). The cinematography was fantastic. The sound brilliant. But I don't get the wild praise for Javier Bardem's killer, Chigurh; it seemed very one-note to me. However...I did find it interesting he's the most honorable man in the group, the only one you can count on to keep his word. Woody Harrelson and Tess Harper were wasted. As for the ending that people seem to think is a let-down or just trails off into "huh," to me it made perfect sense...considering how I feel about the rest of this meaningless movie.

Of course, it'll probably win the Oscar, thanks to all the hype. But if you want to see a well-done film about money and violence and good men making horrible decisions that have disastrous consequences and the evil man chasing them, check out Sam Rami's "A Simple Plan" (which must be where Cormac McCarthy got his idea for his book). You get a LOT more meaning and none of the hype.

Atonement (2007)

Oh, what a wicked web we weave....yada, yada, yada.

[5/10 · 2 February 2008]

This will be a short review because I refuse to add to the tedium of this movie. And as someone who dislikes pushing a story to unfold too quickly, for me to call this thing tedious is a big deal.

The story, such as it is, revolves around young Briony Tallis, who sees a few incidents that could be and are misconstrued. After each incident, the story jumps back and shows us that what she saw has an innocent explanation, but she still uses them to send the gardener, Robbie Turner, to prison for a crime he did not commit. Then comes World War 2 and Dunkirk and the story shifts to the long distance longing of Robbie and Briony's sister, Cecilia, and how Briony begins trying to atone for her lies.

Of course, the production values are good. The acting is good. Kiera Knightly and James McAvoy make a surprisingly acceptable couple. Sometimes the director gets a little carried away with things, but not ridiculously so. I got no complaints there. And let me make clear -- I have not read the book "Atonement" is based on, so my only reference concerning this story is the movie. But if the book is anything like this overly-self-important "film", I'll never go near it. I hate being lied to by a storyteller -- and that is what this movie does about halfway...no, maybe two-thirds of the way through. I won't say what that lie is, but it all works around that age-old saying, "Oh, what a wicked web we weave when first we practice to deceive." The movie should have paid attention to its own message.

Stray Dog (1949)

Like doing a 110 in a Ferrari...and totally worth the ticket.

[10/10 · 1 February 2008]

I just finished watching the Criterion edition of Akira Kurosawa's "Stray Dog," and I honestly cannot think of a better thing to say than, "Oh, my God!" This movie, clocking in at just over two hours, so mesmerized me with its story, naturalistic acting and technique, I honestly did not notice the time. And when it was over, I was drained.

The story is simple -- a rookie detective's pistol is stolen from him and, as he frantically tries to track it down, winds up being used in crimes that grow more and more violent. Sounds like the kind of thing tossed off every week in one of the "Law & Order" series or any other fake police drama on TV. But the way Kurosawa and his co-writer, Ryuzo Kikushima, take this story and layer in shame and guilt and responsibility and reality and acceptance and understanding and pity and anything else you can consider a decent human emotion is breathtaking. Try finding anything like THAT on "CSI" or "SVU".

As Murakami, the rookie, Toshiro Mifune internalizes his usual intensity and lets his eyes and expressions convey his growing sense of shame and horror when his pistol is used first in a robbery and then again in an even worse crime. As his mentor, Det. Sato, Takashi Shimura offers a gentle honesty and low-key approach to life that is not tempered by any pity for the criminals; he even tells Murakami that he hates them...and says it so simply, it's like it's the most natural thing in the world. The bond that grows between these two men...the chemistry between them...is the heart and soul of the movie, but the incidental characters are just as important. A pickpocket who feels pity for Murakami and brings him a beer and some food. A young showgirl who just wants something pretty in her life. A poverty-stricken sister worried about her brother. A gun dealer who loves baseball. A hotel owner with the hots for one of his maids. All add to the tapestry of Tokyo in the immediate post-war period and expand upon the emotion of the piece.

Add to this Kurosawa's already masterful technique and sense of storytelling, and you have a thriller more gripping and involving than just about anything churned out by today's Hollywood (the "Bourne..." series excepted). The closest American film I can think of that even begins to approach this movie's combination of an honest, tedious criminal investigation and real human emotion is "The Naked City", which was made in 1948. And that movie still had its "Hollywood-ish" elements in the home scenes with Don Taylor's detective.

"Stray Dog" isn't just a movie; it's like a Ferrari that seems to merely purr as you drive it...until you look at the speedometer and realize you're doing 110. On top of this, the Criterion edition of the movie has a wonderful documentary about the making of the film. Watch the show, first, then watch the documentary to savor it. It's totally worth the ticket.

Michael Clayton (2007)

An elegant work showing a filthy world

[10/10 · 31 January 2008]

"Michael Clayton" is the name of the best lawyer in the powerhouse litigation firm of Kenner, Bach, & Ledeen. So good, he's not allowed to waste himself in court; he's used to clean up the messes the firm's rich and powerful clients cause -- and he's damn good at his job. Problem is, it's destroying him from the inside out. At least...it's doing so until he slams headlong into a problem that forces him to see the decay growing within. That problem comes in the form of a brilliant but guilt-ridden attorney named Arthur Edens, whose spectacular meltdown during a deposition has thrown a HUGE class-action suit against a conglomerate called UNorth into turmoil. Michael is sent to get him back under control...or else, thus setting in motion what is, in my mind, one of the most breathtaking suspense dramas I've seen in years.

Starting with a tight, stunning script by Tony Gilroy, this movie has every cylinder firing in perfect sync. The acting is, without exception, exceptional. George Clooney takes a vile human being and inhabits him with such sympathy and understanding, he becomes just another man fighting to keep his life going who IS still capable of decency. (The moment where, after Michael's son has seen a beloved uncle who's an addict come groveling for forgiveness, he stops the car and lets the boy know he's stronger than that uncle is so right and so perfect, I nearly wept.) And Tilda Swinton's litigator, Karen Crowder, is so desperate and unsure, you can almost understand why she makes some of the decisions she does. And Tom Wilkinson blazes across the screen as Arthur Edens, who has finally seen the evil within himself and wants to make it right but who, despite all his legal brilliance, is still naive enough to think he can get away with it.

The direction is taut, cinematography and editing cool and precise, and all are at the service of an elegant work that uses the suspense genre to illuminate a filthy world that has been glossed over by money and power. Magnificent in every way.

Think Fast, Mr. Moto (1937)

Clunky storyline and dated attitudes, but surprisingly fun

[8/10 · 29 January 2008]

Ah, the Thirties. What could be more elegant and enjoyable than an ocean liner to the Orient, with two heartbreakingly beautiful people having a shipboard romance while criminal intrigue sort-of-kind-of goes on around them and they are watched over by a genial Japanese man who may or may not be a good guy? And that's really about all there is to the slapdash plot of the first movie in the Mr. Moto series. Yes, there's something about diamond smuggling and murder, but the main point of this story seems to be to introduce the world to the polite but dangerous gentleman from Japan.

And that is something that surprised me about this little movie (it clocks in at under 70 minutes) -- just how dangerous Mr. Moto is. Throughout the first hour he is presented as someone who's more interested in making an allegiance with the smugglers than stopping them. The movie begins with him in disguise looking into the San Francisco end of the smugglers, seeing -- but not reporting -- a murdered body and getting away so he can quietly head for Shanghai. He shows he's a black belt in jiu-jitsu by tossing a few disrespectful drunks around, including the son of the man who owns the ocean liner he's traveling on. And he kills a killer in such a way that no one can find the body...then calmly, albeit a bit sadly, continues his secretive journey. It's not until the last few minutes of the movie that his real purpose and superior intelligence is revealed. To have a Japanese man out-thinking all the sneaky Caucasian minds around him is really quite startling for 1937, considering the casual xenophobia of the time.

"Think Fast, Mr. Moto" may be an obvious attempt to capitalize on the hugely popular (and usually much better) "Charlie Chan" series of mysteries, but it works very well in its own right. Peter Lorre does a fine job (of course) pretending to be Japanese, but something that I've never understood is why Thomas Beck never got to be big in Hollywood. He has such a natural grace in front of the camera, and he's extremely good-looking. The same holds for Virginia Field, though she did have more of a career than he. The production values are above average for a "B" movie and the pace is relatively brisk. If they'd just done a better job with the script, it could have been on the same level as "Charlie Chan in Shanghai." But as it is, it's still surprisingly fun.

The Last Mimzy (2007)

Nice...but not a home run.

[7/10 · 7 August 2007]

Okay, I like the message of "The Last Mimzy." I like the gentleness and purity of the basic story. So I really wish I could say this was as good as "ET" or "The Wizard Of Oz" or any other great movie that appealed to both kids and adults...but nothing about it really fits.

The story has promise -- Toys from the future are sent back to the past. They're found by a couple of very average kids living in Seattle, who use them to see the universe in new ways as they help the toys achieve their goal of finding some way of saving the future from the ruination of the past. There are moments of pure magic -- like when Noah, the ten-year-old boy, learns sounds can affect how a spider builds its webs, and when Emma, his five-year-old sister, sets the "spinners" going the first time.

But nothing about this movie quite works. Not completely. Oh, the kids -- Chris O'Neal and Rhiannon Leigh Wryn -- do a good enough job of acting, especially considering how young they are and it's the first time they've been in front of a film camera. Rhiannon is startling natural in many ways, and Chris closely matches her. And Timothy Hutton, Joely Richardson and Michael Clarke Ward do well enough with poorly written roles. And therein lies much of the problem -- the script and choice of director.

Bob Shaye has produced dozens of movies, so he probably thought he'd learned something about pacing and the shaping of an exciting story that is true to its universe. Instead, he comes across as a beginner. He's so focused on keeping the action going, he forgets to let the story breathe and grow. Maybe that was the way the script was written, but I doubt it. It seems like entire scenes have been cut because they didn't "move things along" in the way some action-adventure genre film might need. I especially miss the development of Noah going from a "C-" drub to a genius science engineer. All we're given is him looking at that spider, doing something on a computer and then BANG -- he's got a science project about bridges across the universe. It's like Shaye didn't know how to dramatize it, so just didn't. And many of the scenes' pacing is off -- like with the kids in the school. Boys tend to jump over each other, verbally, when they're talking; they don't talk, wait for you to talk, then talk. And the kids in this script don't use the same vocabulary as regular kids. Even the scene where the Feds break in -- usually a slam-dunk -- is done so amateurishly, it's disconcerting.

Of course, the dialog IS what came out of the script, and much of it's lame. Simplistic. Unreal. The scene where Rainn Wilson and his fiancée meet with Joely to discuss Noah is brutal evidence of this. Nothing about it comes across as real or human...and that's the scriptwriting, not the acting or directing.

The special effects are nice if a bit cheap. I love the look of Seattle and its environs as a way of showing what we're about to lose if we don't wise up. There are a couple of nightmarish moments that may scare kids under eight, but they work within the context of the story.

Y'know...if they'd just had someone who knows kids' stories do a pass on the script and let someone else direct this movie, it would've been hit out of the park. Instead, I'm willing to give it a double for effort and intent. But man...why couldn't it have been a home run?

The Bourne Ultimatum (2007)

Intensity defined.

[10/10 · 3 August 2007]

I'm a huge fan of the first two "Bourne..." movies. "...Identity" was a top-notch action-thriller that kept you guessing all the way through. "...Supremacy" was so fast-paced and immediate, I found myself holding my breath more than once during one of Jason Bourne's escapes. So I could not wait to see "...Ultimatum." And for once I was not disappointed in any way by a third installment.

The plot is simple...on the surface. Jason Bourne wants to find out who he is, because that is the only way he can be at peace with himself. And he plows headlong into that task with his usual resourcefulness and adaptability, jumping from Moscow to Paris to London to Madrid to Tangiers to New York, chased all the way by those on both sides of the law, including people supposed to be on his side. We connect with some of the usual suspects -- Pamela Landy (the always excellent Joan Allen) and Nicky Parsons (Julia Styles being just right) -- and some new ones -- Noah Vosen (the always excellent David Strathairn) and Dr. Albert Hirsch (an understated Albert Finney). And I will not ruin anyone's enjoyment of the film by saying one thing more about the plot.

This movie starts in fourth gear and peels out like it's at a drag race. The chases are breathtaking, of course, but what is stunning is how connected you stay to the characters, even as they're running and jumping and driving and diving off roofs and chasing and being chased. I did not know it was possible to keep the action and suspense at such a high level for a full 111 minutes, but Paul Greengrass does it. I now truly believe the man is two steps short of God when it comes to making action films.

What's even more beautiful is how the story and images bring us right back to the beginning of the first movie. Taking the audience full circle and ending on just the right note. I've already told all my friends they have to see this film. I urge everyone else to do the same. It is intensity defined.

Borstal Boy (2000)

Inept is a kind way of putting it.

[1/10 · 3 August 2007]

"Borstal Boy" (the book) is a classic example of great Irish storytelling. Some fact mixed with a bit of exaggeration and a dollop of warmth told with a wonderful manipulation of language to bring you to the final destination of truth and awakening. All best done while having a pint of Guiness or Stout. The journey is the best part, because you're made to believe you're traveling with friends and people you want to know, but one never loses sight of the total story.

So here we have a 16 year-old Irishman who thinks he knows everything he needs to know about the British and what scum they are. Blindly trusting his "compatriots" in the IRA, he smuggles bomb-making materials into England during WW2, thinking he's doing a great thing. He's caught, tried and sent to jail, during which he learns the British are not the complete bastards he's been lead to believe they are, and that his pals back in Ireland really don't really care that much about him. He forms friendships in juvenile hall (Borstal is the British version of it) with some of the English boys he's in with as well as the guards, finds other boys and guards are weasels and not to be trusted by anyone, and does his time as if it were a vacation of sorts. There are even hints in the book that the friendship between Brendan and Charlie Milwall, his best mate in Borstal, was more than that...but it's presented in such a subtle and beautiful way, you really can't say for sure. But that's the perfection of this book -- how the language is used to hint at things without saying them outright, letting you join in on Brendan's journey and build your own version of what may or may not have happened.

That said, this movie is a disgrace to that book. I honestly cannot believe it even got made, not with the script they used. It is the most blatant example I have ever seen of "caring" people setting out to make a "grand statement" about how we're all human beings and we should just get along...and doing it in the most insipid way possible. What was lovely in the book is made crass and simplistic and false in this movie. Brendan never had a problem with Charlie being gay. He even walked behind him during exercises and commented to himself on the clean line of his neck. But in the movie, Brendan snarls at Charlie to keep away from him and puts him down for being a poof. In the book, he snipes at a Catholic Priest about the church's support of English control of Ireland; in the movie, he makes his grand speech against oppression at a magistrate, which diminishes it greatly. In the book, he's already literate and aware; in the movie, he's presented as someone who needs to have his intellect expanded. It just goes on and on...and that's not to mention the ludicrous made-up scene where Brendan escapes and leads some fellow borstal boys straight into a minefield so they can be blown to bits and he can feel bad...which only makes him look like a complete idiot. And the addition of a pretty girl -- at an all boys' jail?! Do these filmmakers have ANY idea of how WRONG that is? To be blunt, inept is a kind way of putting it.

Now Shawn Hatosy does an all right job as Brendan. Sometimes his mumbles are hard to follow and he seems to be mainly one-note for much of the movie, but he's not an embarrassment. And Danny Dyer does well with a badly written role. Michael York is given little to do but be there, which is a criminal waste of a fine actor. No one else makes any impression.

As for the script -- it was "Syd Field 101" and below average for that, and Nye Heron only proves that being Irish is no guarantee of being a good storyteller. And the co-writer/ director, Pete Sheridan...he shows no talent for either writing or directing. Fact is, I think the only reason he got to make this movie was because he's related to Jim Sheirdan (someone who's also willing to twist the facts in his "fact-based" movies, but at least knows how to do it well).

The only excuse I can find for this movie to have been made is...well, there is no excuse. Anyone who likes this movie has never read the book it's based on. Hell, they've probably never read anything more demanding than "Goodnight Moon." But for those who care about good storytelling, DO read the book. Please. And trust me -- your memory of it will be ten times better than anything you might get out of this drivel.

Evening (2007)

Every cliché in the book...plus a few that shouldn't be, anymore.

[3/10 · 30 June 2007]

I went to see "Evening" because of the cast. I'd gone to see "Norman's Room" for that reason -- that movie offering Diane Keaton, Leonardo De Caprio and, also, Meryl Streep -- and had loved every minute of it. Same for "The Notebook" even though it was chick-flit lite. And my feeling was, anything offering performances by Vanessa Redgrave, Meryl Streep, Patrick Wilson and Glenn Close would be at least as good. Instead, I found sometimes even the greatest actors cannot overcome trite, simplistic and -- on one occasion -- truly offensive material.

Now I had no problem with the way the film was structured. I actually enjoy movies that cut back and forth in time to tell a story...so long as one era illuminates the other and vise verse. But while Vanessa's character being on her deathbed and recalling a past event she felt "was a mistake" was riveting, at times, the part actually showing what that "past mistake" was does nothing to clarify the matter. In fact, it makes it seem meaningless in the silliest "girl meets boy, girl gets boy, girl loses boy" fashion, and in the most unbelievable, clichéd, wrong-headed way possible.

And from here be spoilers, so bear that in mind should you continue reading.

First of all, Claire Danes was brutally miscast. Not only does she not even begin to resemble Vanessa Redgrave as a young woman, she has nowhere near the chops when it comes to acting. Don't get me wrong, she can be good in the right role -- just not this one. And Patrick Wilson was miscast, though he has the acting chops to almost pull it off. He'd have been better suited to the part Hugh Dancy played -- the rich confused WASP -- and not the object of sexual attraction to one and all; he's a bit too WASP-y for that. Hugh Dancy? One note -- "I'm a tortured drunk and wait till you find out why." And the "why" (I'm a closet case in a sexually repressed world, so I have to drink to excess and make a fool of myself in front of everyone I know) was so offensive to me and the manner in which he died (as you knew he would because that's the only thing that can happen to a faggot in the Fifties) so ludicrous, wrong-headed and mishandled, I nearly threw my candy at the screen.

As for the modern part between Toni Collette and her sister, her fear of commitment, her jealousy of her sister's "perfect life," her sister wondering if she's made the right choices, her pregnancy and her too-perfect boyfriend (which actually might have been more interesting and meaningful if played by Patrick Wilson, and Ebon Moss-Bachrach might have been a more interesting Harris, given his dreamy eyes) -- anyway, all this was hashed over in the 70's and 80's. And in much greater depth. Do we REALLY have to present it, again, and all as if it was fresh and momentous?

And to top it off, Meryl Streep doesn't even appear until the last ten minutes of the movie, all in old lady makeup that hides many of her facial expressions. She's still good, but only because she's Meryl, and Meryl can find a way to pull off even the silliest dialog under the heaviest of makeup.

So to put it simply, this movie has every cliché in the "really meaningful message" movie book, and it adds a few that really had no business being trotted out, again. At two hours long and laced with "Lifetime Movie-of-the-week" music that is guaranteed to rub you raw, it's a complete failure in both the "meaningful" and "moviemaking" aspects. I give it "3" only because of Meryl and Vanessa.

Now, if all you require from your films is twadd le, then please set my comments about "Evening" aside and have the time of your life. But if you want a truly meaningful experience being served up by great actors and filmmakers who know what to do with a simple story about life and death and all the nonsense it brings, rent "Norman's Room" and find out what truly great acting is.

Irish Destiny (1926)

Interesting artifact if not a real movie

[7/10 · 20 June 2007]

I was in Dublin when I first learned about this film (St. Patrick's Day, 2006). I couldn't get into the premier (it was sold out with a list a mile long of people still trying to get a ticket) so I bought the DVD when it became available. And now I've watched it...and I wish I could say that chasing it down was worth it, but unfortunately it wasn't.

The story is very simple -- set during the last days of the Irish rebellion against England in 1920-21, a young man named Denis is in love with Moira, the town teacher, but he puts duty to his country ahead of his own happiness. He joins the IRA (this was back when it was a freedom-fighting force and not a terrorist group), helps fight the Black and Tans (a brutal Branch of the British Army) and kills and is thought killed while Moira is left to fend for herself against a nasty man...all in the most melodramatic fashion possible.

Truth be told, there is no real dramatization of a story, here; just plot points meant to indicate a story. Important moments during the rebellion, like the burning of the Customs House, are tossed off with a few shots and a confusing title card. The acting is like turn of the century stage-melodrama with its characters being either really, really good and heroic or really, really bad and villainous...meaning there is no character development, whatsoever. And I'm taking into account this was made in 1926.

But...and this is a big one...it does carry actual footage of the burnings of Cork in 1920 and of the Customs House, a year later. And there are fascinating shots of Dublin showing how much (and how little) the city has changed in the last 80 years. And it is one of the very rare examples of Irish film-making from the period. So its real interest lies in its historical relevance rather than its storytelling ability or movie-making quality. But considering the greatness of the writers Ireland has produced, from Oscar Wilde to George Bernard Shaw to John Millington Synge to Sean O'Casey (whose "Juno and the Paycock" and "The Plough and the Stars" came out at the same time this movie was made) the shabbiness of the storytelling is a big disappointment.

Pride & Prejudice (2005)

Keira Knightley was perfection...and they mucked her up.

[7/10 · 26 November 2005]

For those who go see this new adaptation of Jane Austen's "Pride and Prejudice" and come out disappointed, I have to say, "Lay the blame at the feet of Joe Wright and Deborah Moggach." What those two were smoking when they made this movie, I don't know, but don't let them near it, again.

They slashed important parts of the book's storyline and characterization in order to fit the story into little more than two hours yet still allowed plenty of time for nice long lovely dollies and pans. They took D'Arcy from being a proud but remarkably handsome young man and made him merely shy, leaving the whole blame for the misunderstandings on Elizabeth's shoulders (damned near unforgivable!) They ignored some of the most telling lines in the story -- i.e. Mrs. Bennet's perfect comment as regards Mr. Bingley's sudden departure from Jane, "My only solace is she'll die of a broken heart and THEN he'll be sorry," (or close to that effect) -- and dropped some major moments -- like Mr. Collins' VERY uncomfortable visit with the sisters after Lydia's disgrace -- but then took ten minutes to wander through Pemberly. Major characters are relegated to bit parts (Caroline Bingley, Mr. Wickham) but then suddenly have MAJOR importance in the outcome of the story...and the short shift given Lady Catherine is inexcusable.

I mean, seriously -- it is NOT impossible to make any of Jane Austen's books into good two- hour movies. Emma Thompson did it with "Sense and Sensibility." And Aldous Huxley wrote a remarkable interpretation (not a slavish one but one which perfectly captures the book's spirit and sensibility) of "Pride and Prejudice" for MGM in 1940. And with that one, even though the time period is wrong and Greer Garson is a good ten years too old to play Lizzie, she catches her spirit and own vague arrogance perfectly. Then to top it off, you've got Lawrence Olivier as D'Arcy, who gives a perfect reading of Austen's line -- "I am in no mood to give consequence to the middle classes at play," (ANOTHER line missing from this tripe of a script). So it's just the ineptitude of the two main creators of this new version that messes everything up, so far as I'm concerned.

Seriously, I cannot really fault anything else on the movie. The period is caught beautifully in look and style (I especially like how even Lady Catherine's wigs were not waxed into perfect place...which also points out exactly how involving the movie was NOT). The acting for the most part is good (albeit not great), excepting Keira Knightley, who is just right as Lizzie. I don't even bash Matthew MacFadyen for his bland portrayal of D'Arcy; he was doing the best he could with a wrongly written role -- though in the hands of a more seasoned actor it might (only MIGHT) have been pulled off -- and he is a nice-looking puppy.

It's funny, but this version of the book reminds me more of that God-awful version of "The Scarlet Letter" made with Demi Moore than anything from the BBC. It's like Joe Wright and Deborah Moggach didn't think they needed to worry about people who'd actually read the book and wanted at least the essence of that story in the film. It's like they thought, "It's old; it's been done; let's muck around and see what we some up with." And in doing so, they proved only that they have a tin ear for storytelling and no idea of beauty or grace. Too bad...because Keira Knightley absolutely was close to perfection...and for mucking her up, they ought to be shot.

The Ghost Ship (1943)

Subtle brilliance unparalleled in ANY movie before or since.

[10/10 · 13 November 2005]

This movie may be expected to be your usual Val Lewton "horror" film saddled with your usual RKO hash of a title -- "The Ghost Ship" -- but it is the finest example of flipping off the censor that I've ever seen. The story is simple: A new 3rd office on his first voyage, Tom Merriam, is invited to learn the "way of authority" offered by his oh-so-perfect captain, Will Stone. During the voyage to South America, the younger man comes to believe the captain is on the verge of madness and winds up accusing him of murder. His charges are dismissed and he quits his position, but events cause him to wind up trapped back on the boat, knowing the captain is out to kill him and none of the rest of the crew believe him.

Now in and of itself, that's a dandy scenario for suspense, which the movie delivers. And the gentle interplay between Richard Dix and Russell Wade is wonderfully underplayed...even as the captain reveals his madness in flashes. But what is MOST amazing is the non-stop homo-erotic undercurrent playing between the very-repressed captain and the good-looking younger man. Oh my God, it practically blazes in the dialog and the chess game and the captain's breakdown while trying to operate on a naked sailor and his reference to a woman he sort of loves but he's really married to the sea, and even that woman's understanding -- when she finally meets Merriam, that she'll never be able to change the captain, even though she's tried. I mean, the entire dialog in the carriage is breathtaking in its deeper meanings, and she even senses in the 3rd officer the same tendencies and offers to introduce him to others just like him..."young men who don't respect authority." It just flies in the face of the Hayes Code of the period and does it without a thought.

The subtle brilliance of "The Ghost Ship" -- in script, in performance, in the making...except maybe for the way-too-sudden ending -- is unparalleled in any movie I've seen before or since. Small wonder it was kept out of circulation; I think the guys who sued Val Lewton over it probably realized the sub-text and didn't want it to ever be seen. Thank heaven it's finally available on DVD.

Junebug (2005)

Kudzu instead of Honeysuckle.

[7/10 · 1 September 2005]

I really wanted to like JUNEBUG. I'm from the South and have family that're a lot like the folk in this movie...but it's deeply obvious this thing was made by males who really didn't understand women while the men were held to a level of silence that was supposed to be...I dunno...something Gary Cooperish in depth? The fact is, in my view these characters would have been caricatures and the story trite were it not for some damn fine casting.

The story is simple -- a young man making it good in the big city comes home with his new city wife...where she finds he's got a lot of family behind him and all of them are 180 degrees her opposite in sense and sensibility. There's the angry younger brother, the mother who ain't happy her perfect older son's married, the father who can't speak more than four words at a time, the perky pregnant wife of said younger brother, the "Church-meetin'-folk" (who thankfully were not cynically treated as fools, for once), the crazy backwoods artist bein' discovered, Grandma Moses-like, and of course the usual family tragedy that shakes up everyone.

Now as I said, I have no nits to pick with the acting; the taut intelligence of Embeth Davidtz, the bubbly-nervous insistence of Amy Adams, the grumbling wariness of Celia Weston, the painful silence of Scott Wilson, the quiet avoidance of Alessandro Nivola...and especially the inarticulate anger and fear of Benjamin McKenzie -- they made this movie work despite the pedestrian writing and adequate directing. Period.

Truly, it was the interaction between the actors that carried this story to the point of having any depth or meaning. Their background information is minimal -- did Johnny have to quit high school to marry Ashley because he got her pregnant? No idea...just a maybe. Were George and Ashley interested in each other at one time? No idea...just sort of kind of...maybe. Does George not go to church on Sundays in Chicago? Looks like a "no" on that...but it's not commented upon by his new wife. She's older than him...I think...so why'd they get married? Love? Perfect match? Horniness? Dunno, they just did after a quickie in her gallery. Madeline's a woman who knows what she wants and goes after it -- witness how she goes after George and the artist (whose work is horribly racist and homophobic but probably the truest thing in the movie) -- but she lets this secretive, demanding, uncommunicative boy-man tell her what she can and cannot do as they're getting ready to leave...all but silently lets him. Why, when it's so opposite to how her character's behaved up to this point?

Y'know, sometimes silence is NOT golden. For it to work in a story...in a film...it has to have context and be indicative of something other than just an unwillingness on the part of the storytellers to write what needs to be said. That the six above mentioned actors were able to imbue something meaningful into nothing is a testament to their abilities. Which is too bad; imagine what they could have done if Phil Morrison and Angus MacLaclan had given them honeysuckle to work with instead of kudzu.

Bride & Prejudice (2004)

"No Life...doo doo doo dum...Without Wife...doo doo doo dum..."

[10/10 · 28 March 2005]

Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah....

That sums up Jane Austen's "Pride & Prejudice" perfectly, and gives a grand idea of the joy behind this beautiful movie. The true mark of a classic is when the storyline can be shifted into any locale and still work, even if the culture is completely opposite to its original setting. And this film does the updating and shifting with seamless ease.

The story is simple -- a mother with several daughters (five in the book, four in this movie) wants to find husbands for them. Along come two rich, eligible bachelors and the battle of the sexes begins...with all turning out well in the end, of course...but this time along with several happily energetic dance and song numbers. My favorite, obviously, is the one in my title.

The cast is beautiful -- both girls and boys (though I expected more charisma from Martin Hendersen). India is gorgeous and idealized in a way that makes it seem preferable to any other part of the world. The colors are magnificent. Ms. Chandra keeps everything moving along at a nice clip. Even the outtakes during the credits are fun.

If you revel in reality and truth and face in the mud sorts of stories about India and the "Third World" (and there are plenty of them), this is NOT the movie for you. If you'd like to see a classic done up Bollywood style and work just as well as when on MasterpieceTheater, then by all means come and enjoy!

Me, I'm still humming that silly tune..."No life...doo doo doo dum...without wife...doo doo doo dum...oh, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah...."

The Counterfeit Traitor (1962)

Engrossing despite itself.

[7/10 · 6 November 2004]

I'm torn over this movie. I remembered seeing it years ago on TV and was blown away by it, so when I saw the DVD was available, I bought it. And despite remembering basically what happens through the movie, I still found myself engrossed in it. But it took some doing, that's for sure.

To begin with, it now irritates the hell out of me to see a movie that is set in the forties having women dressed in modern clothes, even though I know it was common in the 50's and 60's for movies to do that (up to BONNIE & CLYDE, basically). The worst example of this is IN HARM'S WAY, that has one woman in a near mini skirt even though it's supposed to be taking place the night before Pearl Harbor. Well, you got that in this one -- Lillie Palmer decked out in the latest fashions of 1962, even though the movie's set twenty years earlier. It's a glaring fault that makes it hard to take the story seriously.

Second is the incessant voice over that tells us what we're seeing and how we should be feeling about it. Hate that.

Third is the complete lack of chemistry between Lilli Palmer and William Holden, both of whom have been bright and sexy in other roles. I don't know what the problem was, but they act more like they can barely stand each other than as the romantic leads.

I think the fault lies mainly with George Seaton, the director. He is a GREAT writer...but as a director he does not understand his scripts and cannot seem to shape them into anything that approaches the hyper-reality of great cinema. I keep thinking of what Alfred Hitchcock could have done with this story, how sexy and scary it would have been.

But that's wishful thinking, and even with these flaws, the truth of the story builds and captures you and intensifies and provide some powerful moments. I was engrossed, despite myself. Here's a good movie ripe for a remake with an international cast done by someone like Spielberg or Weir. No counterfeit directors, those two; the only one is the one who directed THIS movie.

The Italian Job (2003)

Fun and flashy but them Minis deserved better

[6/10 · 23 October 2004]

I've yet to see the original film, so I don't know if this is an improvement on or detriment to it...but this was an okay movie unto itself. The capers were quick and a bit ridiculous, but not so much so that they weren't involving. F. Gary Gray kept the action going fast enough to where you could ignore the plot-holes and occasional stupidity of the characters. It sure did LOOK good and had that technical polish we've come to expect of modern American chase movies.

But...

I don't know how to say this, but the film was like...I dunno, like a helium balloon that's four days old. It still floats, but hasn't got the happiness a fresh balloon has. And I can't really fault the director, this time; he did better than journeyman work and had some really flashy moments. And the writers...well...they didn't try to get away with all that much dumb or irritating stuff, unlike some other thrillers have tried. It's mainly the performances.

Oh, Donald Sutherland was letter perfect, as usual, and Seth Green can do no wrong in my eyes. But while Mark Wahlberg handled his lines well enough, he seemed like a kid. Edward Norton, who has done some powerful work in the past, seemed even more like a kid. Mos Def seemed like a kid. Charlize Theron seemed like she was only there to make sure the guys came across as straight. But not one of them had any heft or danger or threat to their actions, despite the punches and doublecrosses and threats and gunplay. Even at the end, when Edward Norton is facing his inevitable end, he seemed more peeved than anything else. The fact is, aside from Sutherland and Green -- who carried more weight when he was mimicking "Handsome Rob" than when Jason Statham was mimicking himself -- the most convincing performances were turned in by the Minis. And that is sad.

Compare this film to "The Bourne Identity" or even "Speed" and you can see how lightweight the acting in it is. That's not to say it's not a fun movie...it's just nothing more. And that's what makes it forgettable. Too bad; them Minis deserved better.

Citizen X (1995 TV Movie)

Just enough truth to make for compelling viewing.

[9/10 · 25 September 2004]

Okay, let's start off by saying this film is not an exact rendition of the crimes and legal pursuit of Andrei Chikatilo. While it may have been "official policy" in the Politburo that the USSR had no serial killers, in actuality the legal system had handled others, and "Killer X" (as he was actually called) was already being sought when Fetisov brought Burakov onto the case. In fact, as soon as it was realized they had multiple murders on their hands, the authorities assigned a task force of dozens of officers to track down and end the killing spree of a man that did not fit into what is perceived as normal serial killer parameters. It's good the director and writers consistently remind the viewer that the story is only "based upon actual events," for a docudrama this ain't.

***SPOILERS FOLLOW****

That said, this is a damn good example of a fast-paced Hollywood-style thriller that still gets across the basics of what happened. It is easy to follow and has just enough truth behind its version of events to make for compelling viewing. Yes, Chikatilo raped and murdered both children and adults, both male and female. Yes, shoddy lab-work set him free to continue killing for years. Yes, innocent men were accused of the murders and "confessed" to their crimes at police urging. Yes, the gay community was harassed while the crimes were being committed (albeit with Burakov's committed assistance). And yes, Chikatilo was brought to confession not by the haranguing of the special prosecutor, Gorbunov, but by the gentle understanding of a psychiatrist named Bukhanovsky (though Gorbunov was really nowhere near the egotistical martinet portrayed in this film). Quibbles about truth and veracity aside, all of these events are dramatized in a manner that consistently tightens the tension and fear.

It doesn't hurt that director and co-writer Chris Gerolmo has a pitch perfect cast. Stephen Rea's growing emotional involvement in the killings and developing expertise in detecting clues, Donald Sutherland's snarky manipulation of the Soviet party hacks and subtle spine that becomes evident when it is needed, Jeffrey DeMunn's seething undercurrent of rage hidden by a fear-filled demeanor, Max Von Sydow's boyish excitement at being part of a criminal investigation all enhance the sharp dialog and crisp editing in ways that cannot be underestimated.

Taken for what it is, "Citizen X" is almost pitch perfect (the "almost" due to one moment of self-congratulation at the end that just does NOT fit). Highly recommended as fiction well-told, not fact being presented...but considering the junky "serial killer" movies that Hollywood usually spits out, that's good enough for me.

Cellular (2004)

Fuzzy story but fun.

[7/10 · 7 September 2004]

I just saw this movie on a sneak and I liked it a lot more than I thought I would. That's not to say it's perfect or very deep or even makes a whole hell of a lot of sense, at times, but it moves fast and it's not very long and you almost get to care about the dozens upon dozens of leads...okay, three leads...well, two and a half, not counting villain after villain after villain.

Kim Basinger does a good job of being sympathetic and resilient and fighting like a momma tiger for her family. Chris Evans is believable as the typical Hitchcock hero caught up in something over his head and finding ways to fight back. I didn't like his character at the start -- too much of a self-centered jock with perfect pecs trying to lie his way into a girl's pants -- but he grew on me. Bill Macy (the half character) isn't given much to do but does it with his usual perfection and carries off his he-man stuff, too, in spite of the facial (you have to see it to believe it). The bad guys were SOOOOOO bad they were almost comical, and I found then really stupid...though they're supposed to be smart...I think. Don't hold me to that.

And therein lies the problem. The script...or more likely, the director...shoves aside everything it can in the interests of pacing and sometimes that hurts building any involvement in the characters. We get two minutes of Kim being sweet and wonderful and a passing reference to her being a science teacher and BOOM! She's a hostage in a house. I'd say more, but the story is too flimsy to really handle it. I mean, you have to swallow a whale of a lot at the beginning until the chase starts...but after that point, it's just plain fun and games and a bit of rising tension.

Fuzzy storytelling aside, it's a cute little ride. Good for a matinée and most definitely a DVD rental on a stormy Friday night.

High and Low (1963)

Kurosawa at his best and most subtle

[10/10 · 1 August 2004]

This is one of those rare movies I had to watch twice to catch all the meaning and beauty of its construction, that is how sleek and polished this film is. The storyline is deceptively simple -- a businessman named Gondo is about to take control of the company he's worked in for years when he's told his son's been kidnapped. It turns out the kidnappers got his chauffeur's son by mistake, but they still want him to pay the ransom. If he does, he will be financially ruined. If he doesn't, he will be reviled. Which will he choose? This makes up the first half of the movie, culminating in a breathtaking scene on one of Japan's bullet trains. The second half is the police search for the kidnapper/murderer and how a case is built that will take him to the gallows.

Now this sounds like your typical cop thriller, the type Hollywood churns out with one hand tied behind its back, but Kurosawa makes it into a meditation on honor and decency, and on how one's choices can lead one to Heaven or to Hell in little steps that seem to be taking you nowhere. Gondo is an honorable man who worked hard to built himself a life of wealth and power. This is no small feat, considering Japan is not known as a society where one can easily change one's station in life, so this adds to his dilemma; he will not only lose his fortune, he will also lose his hard-gained power and respect in the business community, all for a child that is not even his. And not only will he lose but his own wife and son will, as well. But to NOT pay the ransom means he will lose everything in him that is human and decent, and his wife and son will suffer from that, too.

This is a big deal -- not just in Japanese society but in the world as a whole. It doesn't matter if you live in Nepal or Kenya or Argentina or New York City, when faced with the choice of losing your position in your society or losing your soul, which would you choose? And would you still make that choice knowing that even if the cops catch the bad guy, it will make no difference in your own circumstances? Just a glance at some of the recent stock scandals gives you a good idea of where most people fall in their choices. And even Ed McBain, upon whose novel this movie is based, knew how hard it would be to give up your world for your spirit; his businessman refuses to pay the ransom.

To me, this movie is Kurosawa at his best and most subtle. Every shot is composed and measured and done just right. Not all films have to have bombs exploding and chase scenes and people going "Boo!" to affect you; sometimes just a man riding on a train en route to what he knows will be a catastrophe to him and his world is enough to make you thank the heavens for a story well told.

The Barbarian Invasions (2003)

Lyrical and elegant in all the right ways.

[10/10 · 26 July 2004]

I bought a DVD of "The Barbarian Invasions" on a whim because I'd enjoyed Arcand's earlier "Jesus of Montreal" and...well...I was in the mood for something French. I just finished watching it...and this movie is so...so lyrical and elegant, and in all the right ways. It's a story about people and not explosions and special effects. It's a tale of love (without the overwrought drama brought to the subject by most modern movies) and understanding (without the "Hallmark" syrup ALSO brought to the subject by most modern movies). It's about death and the realization that sometimes, even though you've lived that doesn't necessarily mean you've lived. It's about how you can know someone and not know them at all...yet still be influenced and overpowered by them, even as they do not recognize their influence. I'm still in awe at how Denys Arcand pulled it off.

The performances are magnificent. Not one false note (well...maybe the crazy woman who got in bed with Remy near the beginning; but she's in just the one scene). Remy Girard and Stephane Rousseau (as Sebastien) worked beautifully off each other, revealing a life's worth of resentment and irritation with each other in a shorthand style of interaction that is startling. And Marie-Josee Croze's Nathalie is alluring and scary and concerned and self-involved and aware all at the same time. Wow.

I'm not the sort who believes that just because someone's a stockbroker or oil trader, they have no soul, anymore than I believe that just because someone's a peasant or been a slave, they're spiritually pure. We are all, each of us, complex and enlightened and loving and hateful and vile and simplistic and stubborn and stupid and smart and flexible and open and closed and any other adjective you can think of...and "The Barbarian Invasions" embraces that humanity in us, even as it skewers how childish we can be because of it...and also celebrates how amazing all our contradictions can make us. It deserves every accolade it receives.

C'est formidable.