jerk1483 Reviews

Brokeback Mountain (2005)

Landmark Classic...but it could have been so much more

[9/10 · 10 January 2006]

There are so many moments in BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN where you wonder, doesn't anybody just cry it out once in a while? Having recently gone through a heart-wrenching long distance relationship, I know the anguish these men wore on their faces. It's no chore, probably even for utter homophobes, to get over the gay thing. The film deftly handles how they consummate their love, making it seem raw and tender and genuine, not flirty and flamboyant as gay men are so often portrayed in pop-culture. In fact, it doesn't really feel like a "gay" film, it's just a plain old love story which is gut-wrenchingly sad. That said, I couldn't help but wonder if this could have been one for the ages. They're calling it the gay Gone With the Wind, but it's more emotionally spare than that.

Heath Ledger is a force on screen. In a moment at the beginning, he has the look of a lost 5 year old boy. He's laconic not to be cool or tough, but because deep inside he trembles at the entire world. It's a simple look, probably unplanned, but he shows just a little the inner turmoil that he cannot let loose. He's not just a closeted homosexual, he's closeted about everything.

This film might run away with the Best Picture Oscar and years from now people will remember a defining moment (perhaps) in the gay rights movement. This could be, in a way, the gay "Guess Who's Coming to Dinner?" Perhaps not a flawless masterpiece, but a humanizing look into the taboos of our times. Just like all classic screen lovers, you yearn for them to make it out together and happy, but the prejudices of others always seem to end that, don't they. Overall, an excellent film, certainly nothing too salacious for even your most staunch Republican conservative male. Surprising as it may sound to say it, this film was just a bit too chaste, but I suppose that's more an issue with our times.

Munich (2005)

Woe be the third act (spoilers, kind of)

[7/10 · 10 January 2006]

I may be one of the few, but MUNICH shares more similarity to Spielberg's worst film (in my opinion) THE TERMINAL than it does to the MUNICH-compared films SAVING PRIVATE RYAN and SCHINDLER'S LIST. MUNICH starts as strong as any film this year, with a sequence that illuminates the historical realities of the 1970's; Americans (supposedly Olympic athletes) help the terrorists get over a fence into the Olympic compound. It's a possibly un-aware reference to America's bumbling foreign policy of "helping" other countries out.

Anyway, the action picks up quickly and major players are introduced in classic Spielbergian ease. The film may be ambiguous in its politics, but it's precise in its dialogue and character setups. Everyone has their dye cast early on, so you can see their developments ahead without giving away too much. What follows the fractured sequence involving the hostage crisis is a swiftly paced action story about the Mossad hit-squad put out on the terrorist's tails. As the assassins begin to see the humanity in their targets, the film begins to lose its way, until eventually the weight of Eric Bana's guilt derails the film into its frustratingly imprecise third act.

The film is gaining praise around the world for its daring stance on an epic, historical struggle between the Jews and Islam. But where the film does attempt a more balanced look at the struggle, it misses its mark trying to defend its three hours, finished with a too-long "you can't go home again" sequence.

It's a noble effort, perhaps, but certainly far from the best Spielberg has done. Perhaps he was so aware at how controversial the film would be for its subject he never scrutinized its narrative arc. What starts as an action movie with a conscience ends with a boring denouement for Bana's Hero of Israel. He realizes he may have enjoyed killing just a bit too much. This has been done before in better films. I'm a huge Spielberg fan, but I won't defend this as greater than a 7, an earnest attempt but it misses its mark.

Bewitched (2005)

Oof...

[24 October 2005]

I had heard the rumors, read the reviews, but nothing, and I mean nothing, can prepare you for the absolute cinematic atrocity that is Bewitched. Worse than a misfire, this movie so obviously didn't have a finished script before it was fast-tracked into production that the third act is part of an entirely different film. This movie doesn't work, ever. Only funny moments are when the camera is left on Will Ferrell long enough for him to improvise, and his character's anguish over being a successful actor reduced to a slapped together new project is hilariously meta-movie.

Oh, this is bad, bad movie. It is an awful movie. There's an old Far Side comic portraying the writers of the original sitcom of "Bewitched". One pitches that Endora puts a curse on Darren and nobody can figure out what's going on for a half hour or so. I imagine given a similar comic on the writers of this film, it would be something more like incomprehensible notes scribbled on a napkin from the Coffee Bean as the writers literally phone in the new pages to the set. This film is so painfully unfinished in its basic script form that I marvel it ever was released. A team of veteran filmmakers all collaborated for this rushed, insipid piece of completely incomprehensible drivel. How does something like that happen in today's carefully constructed Hollywood corporate structure?

Skip this movie unless you are truly masochistic and can't stand to enjoy any of cinema's truly more enjoyable films than this. How bad is this film really? It makes Catwoman look like Citizen Kane. It makes that schlocky student film about the freshman waking up late for class and complaining about nobody understanding him look like...a much more entertaining version of that premise. Bottom line; this movie is awful. DO NOT SEE IT!!!

0/4 stars

Shaun of the Dead (2004)

This is how to make a great film.

[10/10 · 7 October 2005]

Like a veritable color wheel of human emotions, Shaun of the Dead is a comedy that covers all the ground and then some. I was simply stunned how moved I was by a movie that made me laugh this hard. This is no over-hyped special edition DVD movie the guy at Blockbuster says changed film. This film shoots neither over your head nor under it. That isn't to say it's low-brow, it is sublimely clever. But it isn't smug and content with itself as a film, and yet it doesn't desperately attempt to entertain. It comes across not like watching Jim Carrey, who always tries to be everything to his audience, but instead is like Bill Cosby. Cosby could hold hundreds in an auditorium captive with laughter for hours, and you might find yourself in a similar state after watching Shaun.

Am I over-hyping this film? What I've said above is like somebody saying "Mozart was just a musician". The absolute greatness of this film cannot be overstated. Is it gory? Hell yes. Is it bleak? At times. Is it British-style humor? Yes, and with a "U" if you really want to be accurate! This movie is everything it wants to be and more. You may find yourself crying at this film, you may find yourself laughing uncontrollably. You may be frightened to your core. It is really, really, really good. Best ever? No. But guaranteed not to disappoint.

**********(10/10 stars!!!)

The 40-Year-Old Virgin (2005)

Sweetness Rules

[10/10 · 30 August 2005]

Disappointed by "Wedding Crashers" lack of true comedy and lame attempt at a love story, I awaited "40 Year Old Virgin" with the same hopeful anxiety I attach to the Chicago Cubs, hoping for greatness but anticipating tragic levels of failure. I am pleased to report that this film is more like the Boston Red Sox, every time you think you've seen it all, it's finished, there's no hope left for sex-comedies, it will forever be an endless parade of fart jokes and catchphrases, out pops this gem. Don't get me wrong, this movie is crass, it is rude, it assails your sensibilities and outrages uptight Christians. But it bears a closer resemblance to "There's Something About Mary" and not as much to "American Pie", it's teenage counterpart. See, this film is produced, written, directed and acted by genuinely funny and intelligent people, and what results is a genuinely funny and intelligent film. It's imperfect, sure, but it aspires to achieve that which it achieves, and that's a lot.

I can't think of a film that makes the non-virgins look sort of uncool too, unlike the equally virginity obsessed "American Pie". But this film is a film about four men growing to true sexual and emotional maturity, albeit through some particularly hilarious means. Steve Carell plays the affable Andy, a closet virgin who has tried over the years but just ended up blowing it (pardon the pun). He works at a low-wage electronics store job and is surrounded by other stunted youths. Their obsession with sex is his obsession with action figures; it's pleasurable and it's fun, but they don't realize that they don't get it.

One of Andy's coworkers is a pensive dude who at first seems like the sanest one but soon comes off as the most confused. Then you have his black friend who is convinced he has to be a playa to not be a playa hater.

And Paul Rudd portrays a sympathetic loner who obsesses over a girl he never earned and wishes he was still dating. Compared to these three, who gode Andy into sexual maturity, Andy seems relatively stable. But it takes some real shaking up for the four friends to realize that real sexuality is about more than "getting lucky" with hot chicks. And then there's all those parts that are just hilarious. And that's the thing about this movie, it makes its point without sounding like a Republican senator or Pat Robertson. It's a bunch of hip dudes realizing that sexsexsexsexsex isn't all it's cracked up to be, and maybe we should all slow down and wait it out, be careful, see what happens. Andy learns the value of relationships and then is free to explore sex with a clean conscience, something we all would love no doubt, in hindsight after all.

Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy (2004)

Will Be one of those Videos You Watch Repeatedly

[9/10 · 28 July 2005]

Anchorman has a funny effect on me. I remember laughing out loud through nearly the whole film when I first saw it, and yet I still chuckle, to myself, at the now familiar jokes and setups. Like (the Holy Grail of American comedy) "Caddyshack" before it, Anchorman will live on in repeated lines for years to come. I don't pretend it's writing is more brilliant than "Caddyshack", it isn't. It's over the top where Caddyshack is underplayed to perfection, but the two stand as staggering cinematic moments in comedy. I've heard the outtakes are as funny as the finished film, and that most of the movie was just the lead actor's riffing, but I have to hand it Adam McKay for directing a mostly "riffed" film into a brilliant little piece. Of course, I love Will Ferrel's bluster (especially the outtake clips where he overreacts with so many "Great - something's something").

Still, the supporting cast is spot on, the performances always over-the-top and yet never over-the-line. Anchorman walks the tightrope and maintains a crazy energy the whole way through. It's also a very democratic film, every character receives a large share of the laughs. I struggle to think of characters on screen who are not being funny or adding to a joke. Accept the film for the big, ridiculous thing that it is and laugh your pants off.

Also, the moment Roger Ebert criticized as out-of-sync, the "Brawl", is just too funny on its own not to be there. Honestly, the last time you watched "Caddyshack", you knew the Yacht Club scene was a little un-subtle, but you still chuckle at the filmmakers disregard for maintaining tone. It's touches like that that keep these frenetic films alive for years to come. In ten years, you'll ask your friends what they could have been thinking shooting this scene, but you'll laugh just as hard knowing that they actually did shoot it and put it out there.

Batman Begins (2005)

Most Satisfying Film of 2005

[9/10 · 15 June 2005]

By far, BATMAN BEGINS is the movie to beat this year. I have not seen a better movie, and I couldn't have been more pleased to see it in its full opening night glory. The crowd cheered. This is what making movies is about. The film is about two wonderful things; real, human emotion and bodies in motion (these are THE primary elements of cinema).

Some critics have criticized the film's lack of jokey entertainment (The film is joyously free of Schwarzenegger pointing skyward yelling "Get the heroes!"). To critics who would have preferred a smart-allecky, warmer Batman story, I submit the entire lore of Batman as evidence that real Batman fans like their hero dark and disturbed. It's the age old debate; Superman is too invincible, he has no human interest; Batman is too emotionally distant, too far off base to identify. (Spider-Man is everyman who accidentally overtakes heroism and he's fine the way he is.) But Batman is the original hero to all the comic book boys (and lately girls too) who once fantasized about becoming Superman or Spiderman and realized that they would never fly, never spray web from their wrists. This is their movie, a chilling legend of intense self-searching and more than its fair share of legitimate thrills. Which leads me to the villains, of which there are many.

The film opens with young Bruce Wayne falling down a well and being traumatized by a swarm of bats escaping upward. Later his idyllic father rappels down for him and continues teaching him simpleton wisdoms (the film, it seems, goes on to criticize even the most generous philanthropists, suggesting true heroism is more a matter of perspective, that good is more about common decency than spreading your own privilege.) Bruce is then found years later at what seems to be a North Korean prison where he is letter released after pledging to join a secret society of justice enforcers called the League of Shadows (I think). I won't go on into too much more detail, but the film takes it deliberate time showing exactly why anybody would think fighting crime with a huge cape and a bat costume is the most effective method possible (in the film, it seems downright logical).

The secret will soon spread about the surprise character at the end, but I'd like to congratulate Christopher Nolan's specific interpretation of Scarecrow, one of the less popular Batman villains (who always seemed like a weirder version of the Joker). The sequences devoted to Scarecrow's fear-serum are legitimately frightening and yet contain excellent plot development. And that's the real trick of the film, with the exception of perhaps a few fleeting shots, this film moves, and that's no small task at 2 hours and 20 minutes. It clips along with the pace of a runaway train, quickly delivering its ultimate conflict in the best way possible. The cast is excellent and the action spot on. This is the first contender to take the place of Tim Burton's original from 1989. Fans for decades will debate both film's merits, and rightly so. Here lies the proof that in the hands of a truly avant-garde director, Batman can be both a viable market entity and a film that will outlast its marketing drive in the years to follow. Hopefully, Chris Nolan will return for a second and third, and complete a saga of a film series that started strong and lost its way when it changed captains. Here's hoping no returns to the campy, over-the-top-ness of the 90's Batman films. Bring on the darkness.

The Blues Brothers (1980)

Sublime Anarchy

[10/10 · 10 May 2005]

Just as frenetic as Animal House, The Blues Brothers is funny the way Texas Chainsaw Massacre is scary. It's an out-of-control comedy, you really never know when the next laugh will happen or how it will. It's a little scary, just not expecting it. It's full of hilarious moments that are just thrown away as quickly as they happen, but the plot is ingenious. They simply want to save their orphanage, like good little Catholic boys, and run amok of all society to do so. Every second of this movie is unique in its own way.

John Landis might be one of the most brilliant paced directors of all time. I'll always love the tip of the sunglasses to John Candy way up in the crowd. His character is meaningless to a plot, but essential to the film. And who couldn't love the 20 car pile up? That's what I'm talking about. Best line isn't even that funny compared to others but it perfectly sets up the next hilarious 20 minutes; "The use of unnecessary violence in the apprehension of the Blues Brothers...has been approved." Spoken by a dispatcher to the Chicago Police Dept. When you hear that, you wait for all hell to break loose on film, and it does.

Million Dollar Baby (2004)

One of the Best Best Pictures

[10/10 · 9 March 2005]

In recent memory, no Best Picture has deserved its honor more than Million Dollar Baby. Not Gladiator, not Chicago, not A Beautiful Mind, not even The Return of the King. All of those films were notable for certain wonderful aspects, but in some way or another, they just don't reach the zenith of cinema that is Million Dollar Baby. I'll confess, I'm a huge fan of Clint Eastwood as a director. That alone, however, isn't enough for me when critiquing his films. I liked Mystic River, but its third act was (to put it very kindly) weak. Unforgiven is a masterpiece of a western, but no Clint Eastwood effort that I've yet seen tears open its heart so honestly and nakedly as this film. This film is all about the essence of life and living, and the debate raged by Michael Medved and other political hacks cannot detract from its impact on any viewer. Beating Saving Private Ryan, it's the closest a film has come to making me cry in a theater. I almost did, and it's my own fault for not letting in enough, but that's beside the point. The point here? Million Dollar Baby is an excellent film, rich with character, plot, and unspeakable heartache. You have to see it immediately, and try to hold back (like I did) when Eastwood visits his priest the last time. I won't give away any more than that.

The Aviator (2004)

A Truly Underrated Oscar Nominee

[9/10 · 27 February 2005]

While most critics and Academy voters saw it fitting that The Aviator should receive a Best Pic and Best Director nod, it seems most of America's film-going public felt another way about it. "Overblown" "too long" and "not perfect" were words I have heard used to describe it. In the Scorcese vs Eastwood debate, many claimed they'd rather see Marty win for a better film. But this is, without a doubt, one of Scorcese's finest. Though perhaps too similar in scale to the similarly dismissed "Gangs of New York", this is one swift, cunning piece of directing on the part of Mr. Scorcese.

Depicting those years where Howard Hughes teetered on the edge of sanity while achieving so much in so little time, the film's most touching moments are the quietest, when the camera and the actor and director all seem to try and calm down a minute, take a breath, regain control.

Shot and edited like the way Hughes lived, it has a frenetic, implacable chemistry, jumping from extreme excitement to terrifying emotional scares. A credit to Leo DiCaprio as an actor, the sequence at the Coconut Grove bathroom is one of the film's finest, and sloppiest in a way. And that's the way the whole film plays. It almost feels improvised. It has the storytelling of a nine-year-old boy out of breath from a great adventure. And you can't help but connect it's hair-brained energy and logical flow to its anchor, Howard Hughes. And while I won't stay up too long lamenting Scorcese's fifth loss at the Oscars, I will note that he went down with another of his best films. Hopefully, someday very soon, he'll find the connection to his art that Clint Eastwood has found at age 74, and see there's so many more of his own stories to tell. But still, the Aviator is one of those too, and please look into it more closely before you blow it off.

The Day That Shook the World (1975)

It's like a kung fu movie but for Eastern European Politics

[3 November 2004]

So you might find yourself watching this movie somehow, somewhere. For me, it was a class about a much more talented Bosnian director (Emir Kusturica) and the film was shown to give us a better understanding of the recent history of the region. Anyway, this movie is OK when it's OK, and really, really bad when it's really, really bad. Just watch the hilarious torture scene with Maxmillian Schell. Honestly, it's hysterically funny how hammy the acting is.

And the dubbing is really bad, even though it looks like it was shot in English to begin with.

The only scenes of merit are the limited battle sequences. The rest is stupid and obvious, with over-wrought faces and an annoying supporting conspirator in the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand who bounces from playboy to patriot at the drop of a hat. It takes him three minutes to make the obvious pun that he has a date with destiny. Whatever, watch this film some time if you want a good laugh.

Mr. 3000 (2004)

Not Bad, Not Great, so...Good?

[20 September 2004]

"Mr. 3000" has those moments, those moments where you agree that this should have been made into a multi-million dollar feature with big stars and extras and a caterer and all that. There's some pretty funny jokes. It's not a bad film. But it just doesn't really excel anywhere that a sports comedy worth its investment should.

Bernie Mac plays Stan Ross, the titular Mister, and he kind of has the feel for the role all down. But there's two scenes where Mac's inner nice-guy comes out and deflate the bloated jerk he's supposed to be playing. Therefore, the film has this two-headed character, one who is Bernie Mac improvising a nice little scene, and one who is Stan Ross, Mr. 3000 himself.

People have complained the film is too Disney, too formulaic, but the essence of sports is surprise within the bounds of formula. Disney's rules of narrative almost work here; the embittered jerk stripped of his former greatness finds redemption in a second try for his title. It's up to the filmmakers to make it work, to make the redemption by baseball story find nuance and still move the audience. When the drama works (exclusively on the baseball field) and the comedy too (exclusively near the baseball field), this film works too. When it doesn't (pretty much all the arbitrary directions the plot turns to show that he is a jerk), the movie falls flat. So enjoy, but beware the slow scenes with little meaning.

Easy Riders, Raging Bulls: How the Sex, Drugs and Rock 'N' Roll Generation Saved Hollywood (2003)

Catchphrases without substance

[27 August 2004]

This docu makes the misguided error of comparing the careers of Hal Ashby and Steven Spielberg. More different film-makers there have never been. However, by sheer virtue of sharing artistic or commercial success in Hollywood in the same decade, these two anomylous inclusions are lumped in together. Peter Bogdanovich regales us simpletons with his self-encyclopedia, as if he were ever more than a journey-man director. It's intriguing to see the commercial success of The Exorcist and the critical success of Mean Streets sharing the same five minute discussion with various Hollywood talking heads all of whom are past their prime.

One of the rare gems of the film is the sequence recalling how Martin Scorcese, Paul Schrader, George Lucas, Spielberg and many other prominent male film-makers would hang out in the same beach houses in Malibu, but it's only ten minutes long. This is a film obsessed with the tangential perks of that divine spark that was the 70's renaissance of American movies. Presumably this film is based on a best-selling book of the same name, but all this film can sum up is that a bunch of cool movies came out in the 70's, and that, YES, the men who made those movies hung out from time to time. Honestly, you'd be better off just watching every film by the directors that this film interviews and save yourself the thankless task of listening to too many Hollywood has-beens pine for yesteryear. What really happened to these people's careers? Drugs for some, ego for others. Spotty at best, this film just isn't all it could be. 3/10

Near Dark (1987)

Essential Vampire viewing

[22 August 2004]

For fans of the vampire genre, this film hits all its marks. Bill Paxton plays the rascal vampire, the one who gets a little too big a kick out of killing his prey, Lance Henriksen plays the angsty-teen who's grown into an angsty middle-aged heavy, and Adrian Pasdar of "Top Gun" cameo fame plays the film's moral center. This film is the first in my memory that tries to "cure" vampirism through science rather than techniques used by 1987's other vampire movie "The Lost Boys" which relies more on the magic and the myth of Bram Stoker's original incarnation. A small debate has sparked over which of the two 1987 vampire films would be better put head to head. "The Lost Boys" is a campy-comedy, shamelessly showcasing it's 80's glam-metal influences, while "Near Dark" is a much more timeless B-movie from an era of film-making when B-movies were becoming "independent films". If it's scares and an economy of production values you crave, nothing beats this film's bar-brawl scene, a scene so stunning in its savagery you'll remember that you are indeed watching a vampire movie where nice people die (as opposed to "The Lost Boys" rowdy teens who have it coming anyway). It's not a better movie, just a completely different movie altogether. "Near Dark" is that unknown gem you find in the bargain-bin and you marvel at how such a well-done film was relegated to second-class status next to 1987's other vampire hit. Rent or buy "Near Dark" today and see why it's the "scary" answer to "The Lost Boys".

Johnny Guitar (1954)

A Loopy Classic

[9 May 2004]

The English language, as it was originally conceived, never included the words needed to describe "Johnny Guitar". Is is a perfect film? I think...well, shucks, for what it is, it just might be. Let me justify that claim. Sterling Hayden as the title Mr. Guitar is the perfect actor for the role. You know he's meaning to be taken seriously, but for some reason, you just quite can't. This film is a lot like him, that way. It can't be taken 100% seriously, and yet you can't just brush it off as a parody, satire or farce. It's in the third direction that stories take on, where epic characters and caricatures inhabit the same space, play off each other, and nobody quite knows how they all ended up together in the same script. It has to be seen to believed, but it will never be understood. Enjoy, and when you're done, please, explain it for the rest of us.

Road to Perdition (2002)

Road to Mediocrity

[9 December 2003]

This was a film I looked forward to for months. When I finally saw it, I was left with a good impression. It took serious thought to realize this was an excellent film technically, but it lacked in serious, destructive ways.

Most flagrant of the fouls this film commits, I refer you to the voice-over epilogue read by the son. How purely saccharine and awful is that? It was the first moment in the film I just didn't care for. I'd also refer you to the highly stylized nature of the picture, and how the ending on the idyllic beach just calls attention to itself because of everything but the story being told. I expected more from Sam Mendes, but alas...

That's all though, the film is what it is, and it is pretty good. But I do feel, unfairly, it has been awarded the kudos of the film-going sheep, who wanted to latch onto a movie that looked and sounded like it was good, smart, and artistic. This film just isn't that.

Mystic River (2003)

I Can't Leave This Film Behind

[1 December 2003]

I'm reminded of a favorite teacher's old saying; "Great films start when the lights go up." I tend to believe in that theory, that a truly great film stays with you long after the final credit roll. Mystic River is a great film, a truly, categorically, irretrievably great film. It can't be less than it is. The film seems to feel genuine pain, like it's a living thing, in that it can't be less than it is. Some films strive to be more than they are, and there have been countless overblown dramas for centuries, most recently The Road to Perdition. Other films delight in their greatness, accept and relish it, making it a part of their delivery. But in Mystic River's case, it is a film in anguish, trying to make sense of its existence. That is why I feel the main character of the film is Dave (Tim Robbins).

I was drawn to Mystic River by two phenomena; seeing Unforgiven for the first time and being fully indoctrinated into the Clint-Eastwood-as-director fan club, and the other because of Stephen King's simple proclamation that there are few films that matter, really matter, and Mystic River matters.

The film clocks in somewhere near 3 hours, and though I was immediately aware of how long it was, I was also immediately aware of precisely why it was so long. There wasn't a single scene that didn't matter. Not a single scene where the film lost momentum. There were innumerable scenes which frustrated my companions of the evening, particularly the ending, but I was so enthralled I was not ready to leave this world. You might weep when you last see Marcia Gay Harden's character. I think about her, she's real to me now, and I want to help her. I believe this is why the film wishes it were less. I really think some people just won't be able to handle this film well, they'll wish it were dumber, shorter, more "action" packed, because this film is packed with the kind of action you don't want to watch for too long. But it won't let go of you, won't let you off the hook. You're in the know, at the end, and it's like finding out you've been cheated on. You can't have things go back to the way they were before, you just wish it had never happened. Dave's abduction truly drives this story, these people, it's all about what it did to them. But Dave's abduction is also a scape-goat, and you see it in the final frames, and you wish everything were OK. But three lives are ruined, and the final thought, maybe, is that these lives were ruined in their own way, at their own time, and that led to Dave's destination at the end of the film.

Tim Robbins, Sean Penn and Kevin Bacon all deserve Best Actor nods, and the same is true for Marcia Gay Harden and Laura Linney. The young boyfriend also deserves Oscar attention. And of course, Eastwood for director. If Mystic River doesn't win Best Picture, it will be one of the greatest second-place finishers in the history of film, and it will go on for years, haunting more and more viewers, redefining their lives in true ways.

Pi (1998)

Stumbles on it's newborn feet

[1 December 2003]

Watching Pi, I was instantly reminded of every earnest, horror/sci-fi film I'd seen in film school. That's meant as a criticism, and I found myself wondering how Pi was received by a "mass" audience rather than as excellent student-film for Aranofsky's reel.

Let's start with acting, since the most immediate part of any film about people is the people in the film. The only character with dimension, intrigue, and screen charisma (not interpersonal charisma, but watch-a-bility) was the character performed by Ben Schenkman. He was also one of the most minor characters.

I was always aware of why somebody was cast or a character written in. I feel, a lot of times, that a student film is trying to be longer than it deserves to be. That there are moments where no narrative progression occurs, no exposition, just stuff to look at.

Remember the scene on Coney Island when Max needlessly washes his face in the ocean water, it's in slow-motion. Why? I feel because the director or the cinematographer really wanted to do some slow-motion work, to see if it would work. This shows a lack of pre-production on their part.

I also recall the pointless love-interest character, the Indian neighbor, and how every motivation on her face seemed to be suggestive of imprecise direction, not a genuine character trait.

Pi is not a film without its merit, but I fealt it was overhyped. I can never hold a director accountable for the success of his film despite itself, and I honestly believe Aranofsky is a talented film maker, but Pi is not a great film. It is an eloquent film at times, but mostly, it is a clumsy student exercise.

In a Lonely Place (1950)

Better than Melo-Drama, Better than Noir

[10/10 · 30 October 2003]

Nicholas Ray's In a Lonely Place is one of those films you might catch late at night on cable, or have it recommended to you by a trusted friend. However you come across it, invest yourself in this remarkable entertainment, and by the final frame, it has you hard. In a lot of ways, this is what A Streetcar Named Desire should have been. It makes believable the relationship between a violent man and a sympathetic woman. Gloria Grahame isn't a victim, she isn't a fool, we really see the good and the bad in both characters, and the tender moments where they can almost transcend the circumstances surrounding their downfall. Humphrey Bogart never was so good, and Grahame brings a sexuality to the screen unmatched by her contemporaries, and probably never completely reproduced. An outstanding masterpiece, this film isn't to be missed.

The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (2003)

I want to puke...in a good way

[19 October 2003]

There's one shot, not long into this film, that tips you off what you are about to see is either going to deliver on the gory promise and ingenuity of the shot, or the film will never again be as exciting, disgusting, or intriguing. I am happy to report that this is one hell of a capable horror film. It's full of moments, moments you wouldn't predict in the "predictable" slasher genre. I am aware it's a remake, and I have not seen the infamous original. What I can say is that I will compare the 1974 Tobe Hooper production to the 2003 production. Because I was impressed with the 2003 production big time.

I've never seen a film so gory, so dramatic, so visceral, probably in all my life. There are so many moments, intense, scary moments, that you'll be haunted by for hours, days, maybe even weeks after seeing this film. The horror genre is often evocative of sexuality to depict it's terror. If you think of some of the scariest films you've ever seen, there's something almost sexual, in a way, to the thrills of the story. This film would be comparable to a one-night stand; a one-night stand which goes all night. There are many climaxes. And they are a confusing mixture of emotions, all seasoning your overall terror.

Upon first viewing, I couldn't catch a dramatic or directorial misstep in the storytelling. Repeated viewings may uncover continuity errors, visible crew and equipment, or even plot holes, but upon the first viewing in the theater, I was never withdrawn from the story. I never wondered why a character would act like that instead of doing something more sensible. Which brings me to my biggest compliment for this film. It terrorizes normal kids, sexed up and drugged up a little, but they're nice people, and they come to the house of horrors not out of curiosity or a broken down car, but because they encounter the first real thrill of the film, and they just try to do the right thing. If you don't know what I mean, you will as soon as you see it. This film doesn't just have five cardboard cut-outs being hacked to pieces, but real, likeable, and flawed characters, who happen to be the victims of choice for one of the best "slashers" ever committed to the screen. 3 1/2 stars.

About a Boy (2002)

Effortlessly Cool Film about Being Cool

[26 April 2003]

You can't help but like Marcus. That's a given from the beginning of the film. You also can't help liking Will, and you can't help thereafter watching the two of them enrich each other's lives. This is a film of importance if only because it doesn't take itself too seriously. It's just straight story-telling from two distinct and authentic narrative voices; Will's and Marcus'. Now, this is a film which takes a subject as serious as a mother attempting suicide, and makes it a comfortable moment for comedy. There's nothing funny about the event, oh no, but the characters involved can't help not feeling awful the rest of the movie. Marcus is extremely proactive in helping those around him, and his circle of friends slowly grows. Will, on the other hand, is who this film becomes all about. We know Marcus is always going to have a straight outlook on things, no matter what life throws him. It's up to Will to change, and it's outstanding how he can come out of his shell without sacrificing his coolness. What sets About a Boy apart from other films about cool people learning to let down their guard and love somebody, is that in the end they've sacrificed some of their "cool-ness". Will is always a charmer, right to the end, but he manages to really change, and you can't help but marvel at the effortlessness. In the end, it's all about how Will is able to see Marcus as "cool" too.

The Ring (2002)

Scariest Movie of this year

[30 November 2002]

The Ring is not the best picture of 2002. It is, however, the most terrifying thing I have experienced in a movie theater, ever. It's a good date movie if you like scaring the heck out of your date. It's also a pretty good movie.

I have a hard time giving this film better than 7 out of 10, but it's the case. However, many more films that receive such a rating deserve less. This film is 70% satisfying as a film. As a scary movie, it's a whopping 100% satisfaction rating. So, that's good.

Naomi Watts is too pretty for this movie. So is her ex-boyfriend. And her son's role is embarassingly similar to the kid in the Sixth Sense. All those problems are still not enough to not be completely terrified by the premise of this film. Watch the videotape and in seven days you DIE!

Cheesy, sure, but scary anyway. And all scary movies have an inherent cheesiness, no matter how classy they feign to be. So this is the best kind of cheese. This film is really scary. By the way, did I say it was scary? And WHAT AN ENDING!!!

Sweet Home Alabama (2002)

Even My Girlfriend Thought This Sucked

[30 November 2002]

AWFUL! TERRIBLE! AN AERIAL CARPET-BOMBING ON ART AS WE KNOW IT! Such words would describe this film, were it even worthy of such oral thrashing! No, Sweet Home Alabama is a creature far more vile and grotesque than any words dare be written. So, take it from me, this is the kind of film-making that makes kids shoot little animals with bee-bee guns.

I feel ripped off since the trailer made this film seem to have some promise. I recall another, better, Witherspoon vehicle which I immediately wrote-off and then warmed to; Legally Blonde. I thought Sweet Home would deliver on the promise of all the buzz-makers in La LA land saying how Reese was heaven sent and ready to charm the pants off the whole US of A. But, no, this film, I hated it!

Why would producers bother to make this undeserving hit? Ok, so they made money on it. But this film has single-handedly set back human evolution millions of years. In a slow year, cinematically, this film is the lowest, most cloying, tripe achieved.

So she seems to have the perfect life in New York with her perfect boyfriend who asks her to marry him in the perfect way. Oh, ooops, this insufferable snob of a southern belle is still married! Better go home and straighten it out with her "ruggedly handsome" ex and make things perfect once again with her mayor's son fiance! However, as the world turns, she feels a rekindled feeling brew for her ex, and then once she realizes he is also stinking rich and still pining for her, well, that seals the deal! Sorry New York, I done already married a suitor with more green in his scene! Now I can have everything I always wanted!

And she does get it. With a little set-up for the "intelligent" cover-up of her actual heritage, Melanie first runs around her home town insulting and outing everybody, then makes it all better, by, well...she doesn't really do anything redeemable this whole film but all her friends who she's stepped on and beaten about decide to take her back anyway. And then her mom punches the mayor in the face! Ha! That's real, down-home southern belle spunk!

Oh, I could go on, but I wouldn't want to think another minute about this heinously terrible atrocity. Think of some of the worst tragedies in world history, this is the cinematic equivalent. 0/10

On the Waterfront (1954)

Brando's Best (which says a lot)

[5 April 2002]

Terry Maloy is by far the best performance of Marlon Brando's career. Better than Vito, better than Stanley, and sure as hell better than Guys and Dolls. Brando's performance in this film, in my opinion, is the greatest acting I've ever seen. The scene in the car with Charlie ("I coulda been a contend-uh, I coulda had class") is the most famous. My favorite moment, though, is the first moment when you realize how conflicted Terry is in the first scene. He is right in the thick of a mob meeting and watching him shows exactly how an actor should do his job. His character is made totally believable.

The film on its own is brilliant. Without Brando, On the Waterfront would be a great film with a good cast. With Brando, Waterfront is a great film with the perfect cast.

Moulin Rouge! (2001)

Sloppy Masterpiece from the king of slopp masterpieces

[4 March 2002]

Sloppy? Sure. Over-edited? Maybe. Bad movie? No way.

First off, this film might have reestablished the movie musical as a bankable genre. So kudos for that. Why do I love this movie? Because it nearly brought me to tears at the end. There we see a director not afraid to allow a character cry. In a lot of films, when somebody dies, there is a little reaction from the loved ones, and typically a montage of moments when the main character is saying goodbye. You know, leaning on the railing of a bridge with that sad "missing you" type face.

Ewan just cries his eyes out. And,I almost did too.

Ok, enough about giving away the ending (which is told to you at the beginning anyway). This film starts off on a weird foot, making it seem like art-house fare. I thought, about ten minutes into it, that I was seeing the next Rocky Horror Picture Show. When Ewan belts out Elton John's Your Song, the film proves it is gonna be around for a very long time in a very mass-appeal sort of way.

Who could resist that song? It is so good! Then, we are immediately enchanted with the comic misunderstandings of the evil Duke, the penniless writer Ewan, and Nicole as the gorgeous courtesan. This movies is really cool. Nuff said, buy your own copy. You won't regret it.