Change Your Image
Old_Abe
Reviews
Punch-Drunk Love (2002)
Worthwhile portrait of a man and his anxiety.
Okay, straight out, I'm a moviegoer. I'm not some disciple of P.T. Anderson (the director) or of Adam Sandler, and I'm not someone who'll enjoy a movie just because it is different or quirky or has some intention toward being art (also see: "a film").
Some others here have wondered how anyone could enjoy this movie, and they guess that the above reasons MUST apply to the people who find merit in this thing. So let me explain my own positive reaction.
PUNCH DRUNK LOVE deals with anxiety, alienation, and repressed anger: emotions not delved into much in movies. It has a main character I connected with. It effectively portrays his personal outlook on the world with an unusual and subtle use of sound and direction. While not everything about it worked for me, for these reasons I found it very worthwhile and easily the best choice for me at the multiplex.
People expecting a traditionally-styled romantic comedy will likely be disappointed. People expecting a goofy Sandler comedy will likely be disappointed. People expecting a strictly realistic story, told in straightforward way, will likely feel the same.
Okay, so who the heck does that leave as a possible audience? Mainly people who are open to a portrait -- a realistic portrait, but with dream-like elements -- of a person dealing with anxiety, alienation, and repressed anger. Your basic audience for TAXI DRIVER, maybe? Even some of this remaining, relatively small audience may dismiss the movie as pretentious crap, driven to annoyance by a soundtrack they find intrusive, or by directing they find to be self-conscious, or something. Not me.
For me, as a study of this guy, the movie really works. It portrays things and feelings that I found myself recognizing and connecting with: The disjointed sounds of thoughts working in the background of your concentration. The feeling of a total lack of control, that something is very wrong but you can't quite put your finger on it. The anxiety about being around other people that gets a choke hold on you, triggered by something within yourself you don't understand. Then there's the social anxiety with totally evident outside reasons - that some people out there ARE predatory and will be careless or worse with you. The feeling of a vague threat, lurking on the outsides of your awareness, a dark rim around the edges of life. The guy's (over?)attention to little details, such as the bar codes on food containers or the intricacies of some scheme that he's cooked up in his head -- little strings of ideas he protects and attends to, maybe because they are in one of his few corners of control and of privacy and dignity. The built-up rage that suddenly bursts forth, seemingly out of nothing.
This description breaks the character down into some of his qualities or tendencies, but up on the screen he's vividly and humanly presented by Adam Sandler. Watching him stirred thoughts and feelings inside me, about myself and about my own reality. For one thing, the connection with the character made me feel less alone in having some of these kind of feelings, frankly. How often does a movie do that?
You may ask why you would want to spend 90 minutes or more watching such a person. If it does sound to you that you'd feel that way, hey, you have now been forewarned. (Send your eight bucks to me, instead...)
One valid criticism of the movie is questioning the "love" part of it. You may find the young woman's character underdeveloped, and feel that you have not been shown enough of her to understand what she sees in this guy, or what her outlook is in general: It's really a portrait of his character rather than a balanced love story. You may also question the foundation of their relationship, whether they've really got something that you would call love and that will grow further. But this is not so much a criticism as a legitimate question we are left with.
Anyway. Good character study with some effective, surreal storytelling. I'll probably watch it again on video.
My First Mister (2001)
Strong first hour about an unlikely relationship. Worth watching overall.
(SPOILER-FREE)
Like a lot of folks I rented this on Albert Brooks' name alone. His movies usually strike me in a funny place that others don't reach, or even try to reach.
And MY FIRST MISTER did, too -- but as others have noted, there's more drama than comedy here.
The meat of the movie for me -- the part I even played again the next day, to enjoy it a second time -- was the first hour. Watching the two lead characters meet and connect in some unexpected ways was consistently interesting, sometimes delightful, and sometimes downright moving. The movie respects its characters, and we get a story which largely feels like it comes right from them and not dictated by the needs of a Hollywood formula. For once I was actually interested in what the heck would happen to these two people on the screen.
Brooks deserves a lot of credit for grounding this thing and making it understated and real. God knows I'm biased about the guy, but he really does a good job -- the writer should give him a big bear hug, God bless him. His chemistry with Sobieski is strong and they carry the material well. Oh yeah, she's good, too, by the way. :)
The first hour could easily be imagined as a very good short story. So what happens then?
I'll only say that at that point, the plot takes a new direction, and the remaining part of the movie is on the threshold of melodrama -- a bit too much and too often for my taste. While the magic of the earlier parts relied on the interaction of two individuals, and was to some good extent outside Hollywood conventions, the later parts involve some (weaker) ensemble stuff, and maybe tend to follow Hollywood's tendency for closure and emotional wrap-ups. Moreover, there's a pall of maudlin in the later parts that I found hard to take. (But it could be that like J. in the movie, I'm "not that good with emotions and stuff," I don't know. Your mileage may vary.)
In any case the good will earned by the performers and story carried me through it, and I was happy to have seen this movie. Brooks fans should definitely see it; others "take the silverware out of your face" and give it a try.
Old_Abe
Game of Death (1978)
Watch "Bruce Lee: A Warrior's Journey" instead
We've seen the words "director's cut" or "restored scenes" pasted on so many box covers that the labels have become suspect. Do we really benefit from seeing 5 minutes of restored footage on the latest David Spade movie? Probably not.
However GAME OF DEATH is a prime case where the original writer's vision IS in dire need of restoring. That writer -- Mr. Bruce Lee himself -- was not able to see his vision through due to his unfortunate and untimely death. So the studio took the 20-30 minutes of footage Lee had shot and pasted it to more than an hour of front story they created on their own. This front story attempts to conjure up Bruce Lee by using body doubles, shadows, old Lee film footage, and once even a cardboard cut out of the gung fu master. The results are much what you'd expect: pretty darn cheesey. (Perfect material for a "Mystery Science Theater" episode though, waiting an hour and 15 minutes for Lee to show up in his own movie.)
As another commenter points out, there is a better way. Namely, checking out the documentary BRUCE LEE: A WARRIOR'S JOURNEY, which I've seen available on DVD for the same cost as GAME OF DEATH. It's also been run on the cable station AMC; check their site for upcoming viewings.
The documentary chronicles some of Lee's rise, with his struggle to be accepted both as an innovative martial artist and then as a legitimate box-office draw in the U.S. What comes across is a man of great drive and strength, a guy who challenged old ideas of how things should be and continued to find his own way.
The later portion of the documentary recovers Lee's original notes on the GAME OF DEATH, which paint a different and more interesting story from what ended up being shot posthumously. Also recovered is more actual footage Lee had made, which the documentary weaves together using Lee's notes as a guide. The resulting mini-movie improves on the 20 minutes seen at the end of the GAME OF DEATH studio release. The fights are extended and involve more characters. So you're getting more good footage, and more of the essence of GAME OF DEATH from watching a documentary than from watching the movie itself.
All right, gotta get off my soapbox now before Karim Abdul Jabar kicks it to shreds. What a reach on that guy, huh?
Star Wars: Episode II - Attack of the Clones (2002)
Enjoyment, or Overcoming Your Disturbance with the Force
**BIG-TIME SPOILERS AHEAD**
For a more certain path to the light side the side that refreshes it helps to divorce one's mind from the original trilogy and consider the more recent Star Wars movies on their own merits. While bearing the same name, they differ from the first batch in some respects, and comparing them too much can lead to frustration. Frustration leads to anger . . . anger leads to hate . . . and hate leads to . . . well, overheated message boards and chat rooms across the galaxy, I guess.
So as the lights dimmed I settled in with relaxed expectations, ready to have a good time. And to the extent that I followed my own advice, it served me well and I had fun.
Like an aging warrior with occasional constipation, the story takes a little while to get going. Apparently the Dark Side (along with an air of heavy self-importance) clouds all things as the Jedi Council convenes. Senators commiserate about matters of Great Concern to the Republic. It's kind of like watching a C-SPAN video signal broadcast from a long, long time ago in a galaxy far, far away. But I kid the Jedi Knights.
Soon enough the teen Jedi-in-training, Anakin Skywalker (Hayden Christensen) is thrown together with an ex-royal in peril, the lovely Padme (Natalie Portman). As has been widely reported, the ensuing romance is not exactly one for the ages. Acting tends toward the stiff, and the dialogue ("I hate the sand") wanders into ludicrous territory at times. While there is the beauty of Natalie Portman to consider, you may find yourself wishing for some emergency dialogue assistance in these patches. The budding couple amuse themselves by riding and rolling on alien beasts and in fields of waving grain, respectively.
While the kids get reacquainted, a still youngish Ben Kenobi (Ewan McGregor) shoots off to track down Padme's would-be assassin and stumbles upon a greater threat to the Republic. There is a waterworld here curious to behold, with Kevin Costner thankfully nowhere to be found. Along with the heavy rains, a showdown is precipitated between two of the most cool-headed dudes around: one a bearded Jedi, one a bad-ass bounty hunter whose armor looks awfully familiar.
An hour or more has gone by, and you may feel you've had a moderately good time, owing largely to visual pleasures. Your eyes have feasted on some intriguing backdrops, perhaps lingering also on the good looks of an actor/actress. Your ears have welcomed a few familiar names, noting some (occasionally clumsy) references to future events of the original trilogy. So far it may not be a great outing, but a nice diversion.
Suddenly, the movie finds that its hyperdrive is operational after all, and an action extravaganza ensues, gladiator style. Action? Adventure? Yeah, I know, a Jedi craves not these things; but even the most gentle souls may be ready to chuck that philosophy as the movie pulls the light saber out of it's a** and really gets moving.
And yes, Yoda reveals why he's called Master Yoda in a battle sequence which now has its own television ad campaign. The little guy bounces and hops his way along the fine line between terrific and totally ridiculous, and in any case he seemed a real crowd-pleaser at the showing I attended. Having shrewdly concealed his true powers in the great tradition of singularly-named heroes from Jesus to Columbo, Yoda also manages to emerge as the movie's Master Thespian. His acting is rivaled only by that of Christopher Lee (Dooku), who exudes a wonderfully easy-going sense of menace, suggesting `Yes, of course I'm evil . . . surely there's no problem with that?'
To sum up: While you may find yourself missing certain elements of the original trilogy -- the iconic characters, the fun ensemble chemistry, the use of real (non-CGI) sets, the simpler plotting, the cynical-everyman-quality of Han Solo, the - okay, okay, I'll stop it, you're right, it's not healthy -- there are surely pleasures to be had here: (1) visual backdrops, (2) light saber battling, (3) the thespian stylings of Christopher Lee and Yoda. (Add an areola or two if you find one of the leads especially attractive.) Despite its flaws, you may very well emerge from the latest Star Wars episode pretty jazzed, ready to swing a light saber and kick a little dooku yourself.
The Night We Never Met (1993)
Blessed are the cheesemakers. Some laughs, but romance disappoints.
THE NIGHT WE NEVER MET
Sam (Matthew Broderick) is the reasonable man in a crazy urban world, the man of thoughtfulness and refined taste in a landscape of Leroy Neiman paintings and beer commercials. The guy would sooner cook for an hour over a hot stove than say `supersize it.'
By day he's a store clerk in an upscale gourmet eatery, and these scenes raise a smile, especially for anyone who's visited the actual chain in New York City -- the portrayal isn't far off from the reality. Our man is besieged by hoards of customers who want their imported French cheese cut to impossibly exact standards. His efforts to remain outwardly polite (while you know he'd like to take the cleaver to the relentless clientele) are pretty funny, and will warm the hearts of clerks everywhere. In general, Broderick is in good form and provides the movie with most of whatever lightness it possesses.
Sciorra's lovelorn dental hygienist, Ellen, is fine enough, too, and her unknowing interaction with our cheese-slicing hero shows some hopeful chemistry, and you may begin to feel you want to see these two get together.
One of the main competitors for our lady's affections, a stockbroker (Kevin Anderson), is played as caricature: he's the beer swilling frat-boy whose idea of after-sex sensitivity is flipping on the football game. He's kind of funny at times, but the movie might be stronger if he was written or acted for us to like him more, instead of having us merely recognize him as the flat-out `wrong' guy in comparison to Broderick's sensitive man. Think of John Candy in Splash, taking a cigarette and beer can to the racquetball game; we know his lifestyle is not the one our hero should emulate, but we can't help but be charmed by the likeable goon. Whereas this character is merely a goon, and pretty unlikable all around.
While it's a nice enough light movie for the first half, for me the story was somewhat derailed by its unbelievable (Hollywood) presentation of sex and adultery. (SPOILER AHEAD, skip to next paragraph.) When Ellen returns home after an evening's misadventures, she is naturally faced with the questioning husband (Michael Mantell). Quickly admitting her own indiscretion, she then immediately turns the situation around, demanding to know why the guy had gone ahead and bought a house without discussing it. Granted, it's a valid issue, and granted, many people use this countering maneuver in arguments. What's unbelievable is what happens next: the guy starts responding to her question, addressing the house-issue in a quiet, thoughtful manner. WHOA. You'd be hard pressed to find a married person in the world who, when faced with his/her partner's totally unexpected adultery, would be ready to address anything so calmly. The guy would surely be bouncing off the walls, or else crushed into silence and tears - but see, then we might actually feel for the poor schnook, and we'd see Sciorra's character in a poor light. And since that particular audience reaction doesn't serve the romantic comedy, the story tries to sneak around it. You may start to feel that, like the husband, you're being taken.
Further dissatisfaction is just around the corner in the ending. We realize this is where misunderstandings will get sorted out, and our couple will finally see a clear path to one another. We want the satisfaction of rooting for them. But it's marred by another unbelievable character reaction, followed by an abrupt conclusion that feels rushed and forced, too easy and unearned. You may feel as though the movie's cheating on you again...
Anyway if you catch it on cable I recommend the gourmet market scenes. Maybe we'll all be more understanding of the overworked clerks in this great land of ours. :)
Ordinary People (1980)
Absorbing story, well told.
Repeated viewings have not diminished Ordinary People's impact for me. Seeing it for the third time recently, I was again thoroughly involved by this story of a family trying to hold together after the loss of a member. Though I've not had to experience a loved one's death, there's still much here about life and family and growing up that is easy to relate to, probably, by anyone.
Conrad (Timothy Hutton) is a young high school guy going through a confusing time, and he seems so real and familiar on a gut level that it's occasionally uncomfortable to watch him. While his story is central, a fair amount of time is also given to the perspectives of his parents, Beth (Mary Tyler Moore) and Calvin (Donald Sutherland).
The most common situations - eating breakfast together, driving to school - are at once totally familiar and obvious at first; and yet just as in reality there lurks another life in their silences, in what is not said, and in their body language and choice of words. You as viewer are invited to read these people; the movie respects you as an active participant, rather than constantly telling you what the heck is going on.
The supporting roles are realistic in the same manner, especially Dr. Berger (Judd Hirsch), Conrad's psychiatrist, who could have easily been just a plot device in a lesser movie. This one, thankfully, succeeds in giving anyone who wanders onto the screen a fair shake, a real representation. Conrad's chorus mate, Jeannine Pratt (Elizabeth McGovern) for instance, receives less screen time but still gives every indication of having her own life outside of the events in the movie(even if that life doesn't include practicing her bowling stance).
I suppose all the realism in the world wouldn't matter if you didn't want to spend time with these people -- if you didn't identify with them or find a good amount of merit in them -- but I did, and it's likely you will too.
Some credit for these strong portayals surely goes to director Robert Redford, whose straight forward, matter-of-fact presentation somehow gives more power to the emotions underlying the story. As much as I enjoy Scorsese's dynamic camerawork in Raging Bull (another Oscar contender for 1980), I also take my hat off to Redford for his seemingly simple approach. The fact that he lets his camera sit still and allows the actors to ACT earns him my respect and makes me wish more moviemakers would just do this simple thing. Further, he seems to know how long to let a scene go he gives you enough of it to draw information about the characters and story, and not so much that you're ever looking at your watch.
Now I'll leave you with one criticism, which has to do with the story's outcome and not the technical aspects or acting/directing. (SPOILER AHEAD, skip to next paragraph.) My girlfriend and I agree that, while it's generally even-handed, the story ends up slightly villainizing the mother, Beth. Sure, she is (agonizingly) more reluctant to show troubling emotion or to deal with the problems underlying the surface of her relationships with son and husband. But she is still shown to be a sympathetic, wounded and understandably confused person, and I think her husband is a bit too damning and dismissive of her in the end. It just seems their relationship is put into more jeopardy than is warranted, given what we have been shown of this couple and their feelings toward each other. I guess I was convinced they did in fact love one another and could have worked through the situation, and so I was a little frustrated at the possible ending of their marriage. But maybe the separation turns out to be temporary and mendable, so who knows
Ordinary People is refreshing as a straight drama. Most dramas made today feel compelled to give us an ironic wink now and then, as if to appeal to our sense of cleverness in case our hearts are not all that engaged by the story. Ordinary People doesn't wink or blink; it just presents these people and their story with sensitivity and intelligence. I know I'll watch it again, and I recommend it to anyone.
Born to Be Bad (1950)
Joan Fontaine is the classic lovely manipulator
If you've enjoyed Joan Fontaine's endearing performances in REBECCA or SUSPICION, check out this movie for an entirely different turn of character.
Joan plays Christabel, a woman with nice curves who's got all the angles, too. She's a classic manipulator, and the fun of the movie is watching her try to keep up her false appearances as she runs recklessly through the lives around her -- society friends, sick relatives, a thin-mustached rich playboy, and the rugged novelist guy who sees through her and loves her still.
The performance is one of shifting eyes, deceptive wheels turning inside the lovely Christabel's head, trying to recall which lie she told to whom. Fontaine retains a sense of mystery about her, because you keep wondering to what end is all this manipulation, anyway -- does Christabel even know? A consummate liar, she also remains a bit sympathetic through it all: you get the sense of someone who has played so many contradictory roles that she's kind of a lost soul.
As for the story itself, it's pretty good; and the supporting characters are merely okay. But really, they're just pins set up for Christabel to upset. Sit back and watch her go.
So, if you're like me and wanted to reach out and protect Joan in her Hitchcock movies, try BORN TO BE BAD. She's just as lovely (those doe-eyes will make you want to believe her) -- only hold onto your heart, and your wallet.
Mute Witness (1995)
Late Night Surprise -- Suspense!
I couldn't stop watching this movie, though it was far past my bedtime.
Comparisons to Hitchcock are deserved -- this thing really plays with you. It walks a wonderful line between real, immediate suspense and a dark, distancing humor. Like many of Hitch's heroes, our doe-eyed mute witness has innocently stumbled into something truly horrific -- and we are taken on quite a ride with her, at turns identifying totally and feeling her fear, at turns watching in thrilling suspense as she is placed further in jeopardy.
The filmmakers have put in a lot of tender care in working this out. Right from the opening shots, they engage and challenge you to determine what is real and what is fabrication; who is to be trusted and who is a monster. The plot twists and turns unpredictably. Suspense is created with a combination of carefully chosen camerawork, imagery, music -- but most simply THE EYES of the characters, which sends raw fear right into you.
A warning: there is some frighteningly real gore, as well as some nudity. The horror scenes are done in an emotional way that make them far more scary and disturbing than in any teenage-slasher pic.
And a teen-slasher pic it AIN'T. The characters are quirky and feel like real people, for one thing -- a couple (including the heroine) you may even find endearing as I did. There will be no mistake you're watching a movie made for grown-ups. I mean, Alec Guinness is in it, briefly, and you know he didn't NEED the work!
Pop this in the VCR some night when you can't sleep. . . and don't want to, yet.