Change Your Image
pianoplayinpaulie
Reviews
The Phantom of the Opera (2004)
'Phantom' Works Better as Stage Spectacle
Joel Schumacher's *The Phantom of the Opera* is one of the more schizoid movie-going experiences I've ever had.
On the one hand, I love the music. I consistently get spine tingles when the first crash of the organ chords to the Phantom's theme occurs. Tears strolled down my face and I got goosebumps during the songs "The Music of the Night," "All I Ask of You" and "The Point of No Return." While the movie is not as ravishing as I expected (with the exception of the "Masquerade" production number), I loved *looking* at it, and enjoyed one performance tremendously.
On the other hand, I disagreed with several directorial choices, found the movie almost painfully slow, devoid of necessary tension and woefully miscast in two of the lead roles.
A major problem is that the Phantom simply isn't a threatening presence. It seems to be forgotten that this story should be a little spooky! On the recording, you can sense actual terror of the "opera ghost." No one seems too afraid here.
Perhaps this is because the screenplay gives us psychological reasoning for why the Phantom acts as he does. By making Madame Giry aware of what makes the Phantom tick we are subconsciously informed that his story has been told by her before. And if it has, what's to be spooked by? He's gone from being a seeming apparition in the bowels of the Opera House to a sexy stud with a mask, a past, and control issues. It doesn't feel right.
Schumacher also makes the mistake of showing us brief shots of the Phantom as he is setting up his "accidents," especially the first one, where the scythe nearly kills Carlotta. It ruins all sense of mystery. Wouldn't it have been more appropriate if we didn't see the set up? After all, we're dealing with a *phantom!* The stage version worked because the Phantom was generally showcased through use of shadow or a disembodied voice when he was not onstage.
Emmy Rossum is wonderful and a real find as Christine! She has a lovely presence and I found her singing voice to be warm and engaging. She projects emotion into these songs that Sarah Brightman does not on the original recording. If there is reason to see the movie for a performance, it's Rossum's.
I have a problem with the choice to make the Phantom a younger presence. It doesn't make much sense that the "angel of music" promised to Christine Daae should turn out to be relatively close in age to Daae herself. This becomes especially non-sensical when, after "Wishing You Were Somehow Here Again," Daae is transfixed enough to think her "angel" is really her late father! An older man simply serves this role better.
Gerard Butler sings fine as Phantom, although he growls and whispers more than I'd like, which makes the Phantom's agony almost non-existent. Michael Crawford is definitely missed. It should have been Crawford's role....or even Antonio Banderas, as was originally suggested.
Patrick Wilson is, unfortunately, a blank slate as Raoul. When he sings "All I Ask of You" to Christine he may as well be singing to a wall. I know Wilson to be a fine actor (check out *Angels In America*) so I can only assume he was directed to this by Schumacher. It's rather standard that Raoul is supposed to be a "blah" compared to the Phantom, but here he is made *too much* so.
I didn't find too much in Minnie Driver as Carlotta, despite all the buzz on her performance. I know that Driver can sing (she sings the end credit song "Learn To Be Lonely," which is totally incongruous with the rest of the score), but I don't understand why they didn't cast someone who actually has the operatic range to SING the role of Carlotta.
I was confused by choices to turn some sung moments into dialogue. What was wrong with just having everything sung? For all the supposed complaining people are said to do when people burst into song in movies, here there is the opposite problem: it feels stilted and wrong when the people TALK the lyrics while the corresponding melody plays.
Some of the musical moments are not as focused visually as I would have liked. For example, after the Phantom overhears the love duet between Raoul and Christine, as he sings the line "You will curse the day you did not do / All that the Phantom asks of you" he is singing up to the sky. Huh? Wouldn't it be more effective to make some sort of connection that he is projecting doom onto the lovers? During "Wishing You Were Somehow Here Again" Christine is walking through the mausoleum. It's only at the very end of the song that she is at her father's grave specifically. As a result, the visual seemed more like an excuse to show off a set piece than to focus on Christine's moment of prayer to her father.
I mentioned the "Masquerade" sequence earlier. As I watched, I held my breath for the moment the Phantom arrives. It is a moment of creepy power not only in the musical but in the 1920's silent. Essentially, the Phantom arrives in a costume representing Death. I hoped Schumacher would stick to it. He doesn't, really. Even the chandelier crash is uneventful as a climax to the movie.
It is clear that Webber's *Phantom* fares better as stage spectacle than as a film.
Paul Katz
Jersey Girl (2004)
This Jersey Girl Is a Great Date
OK, how obvious is my title? :)
Kevin Smith is a writer I admire tremendously. He has an uncanny ability to capture the way people speak in reality; not just in movie screenplay structure.
*Jersey Girl* is a real step forward for Kevin Smith. He returns to screens with a mature and funny film about a man learning to be a father. The style here is more aligned with Smith's terrific *Chasing Amy* than *Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back.*
Ben Affleck is Ollie, a hot shot New York publicist with everything going for him. As the movie opens, he and his girlfriend Gertie (Jennifer Lopez) meet, get engaged and married and expect their first child together.
Then the unexpected happens: Gertie dies in childbirth and Ollie is left with his infant daughter. Mired in his own grief, he essentially ignores his child for the first month, leaving the baby care-taking to his Pop (played by George Carlin). A crisis moment comes where he's forced to handle both his career and his child at the same time, and it doesn't go well.
Flash forward six years and Ollie seems to have adjusted to a different life in a small New Jersey town. He absolutely adores his daughter, who is named for her mother. A young woman who works at a video store (Liv Tyler) enters their lives in an unusual way and the movie becomes an exploration of the push/pull between what someone wants for themselves and what they should do to meet the needs of others.
Two things could have happened with a movie like this. One is that it would be about how Affleck's character falls in love with the quirky video store girl and Gertie has to cope with the new woman in daddy's life. Two, the movie would be filled with cutesy "kid" moments that are meant for nothing more than easy smiles.
Neither of those things happen. Of course the little girl is cute, but there is substance behind it. The way Ollie and Gertie communicate with each other is very realistic and in many moments, fraught with tension that works. As far as the stuff with Tyler's character, the script doesn't persue a standard 'romantic comedy' courtship between the two. Instead, everything is repressed and tentative. Affleck's and Tyler's characters basically duck around their feelings for the whole thing.
Both of these directions were completely refreshing and as a result, the movie didn't feel so "standard."
I was happy to walk out of *Jersey Girl* feeling like the stuff that the press shoved down our throats regarding Ben Affleck is gone. This movie wipes that away, even though Lopez is in the movie for the first ten minutes. Ben Affleck's career will definitely survive the overexposure he's had, and this movie is the first step in ensuring that. It reinforces that he is a good actor, not just the latest dude to be dating the industry's latest hot chick.
George Carlin reigns in the schtick and gets to play a really solid character. Sure, he has some quips here and there, but he fills the role of loving "pop" quite well. Also of wonderful surprise is Liv Tyler, who is light and bouncy as Affleck's love interest. I found her performance really intriguing, especially since she is able to speak the lines of the character through her mouth, but have her eyes communicate something totally different at the same time.
Smith makes excellent use of music in this film. One scene in particular where Stevie Nicks' heartbreaking "Landslide" plays nearly had me in tears. And who would have thought anyone would be able to use a rather dark Sondheim musical to such greatly comic, and not too over the top, advantage.
There is also a scene in the film that contains one of the most natural exchanges of dialogue I've seen in a film. In a conversation between two fathers, Smith manages to make it seem as though two actors are speaking as themselves. It's a fantastic scene.
*Jersey Girl* is another reminder of how much I appreciate Kevin Smith. If you're looking for a sweet and charming time at the movies this spring, so far, *Jersey Girl* is a great bet.
Paul Katz
The Passion of the Christ (2004)
Over-Directed, Overblown
I have the utmost respect for those who utilize the teachings of Jesus Christ and the New Testament as the basis for their faith. My thoughts are ONLY based on Mel Gibson's film interpretation.
I walked in fully prepared to have a profound experience with *The Passion of the Christ*, but wound up finding it over-directed and overblown.
If Mel Gibson wanted other faiths to understand Christ's story and feel that we are ALL responsible for Christ's death then he has failed as a director, in my opinion.
The script was too pedestrian and it seems one had to know the New Testament inside and out in order to connect to the feelings of anyone. I was not emotionally moved or inspired. Although I know the story of Christ, those who do not recognize Jesus Christ as the Savior in their religions are asked to fill in a LOT of blanks. This will probably render the story completely meaningless to them. That is why this is a flawed film to me.
Yes, Jesus Christ is beaten beyond a pulp in this movie. I don't think I am jaded. When I find something too realistically violent in a movie, I react. I did not here. Violent is not the word I would use to describe the second hour of this film. Bloody -- via a great make-up job -- yes.
Gibson only uses two or three shots of weapons hitting Christ's skin. To me, a physical action is "violent." But we don't see the physical action of weapon hitting skin too often. Beyond the Crucifixion, the violence is all "suggested." I did flinch once or twice, but Gibson says he "wanted to push the audience to the edge." I was not pushed; sorry Mel.
As a director, Gibson used way too much slo-mo trickery to heighten the "important" moments. It wasn't necessary. It also didn't seem to be so important that we see Christ fall to the ground four or five times in slo-mo.
The imagery was so heavy handed. In the scene where Judas decides to kill himself, he winds up seated in front of a dead, decaying lamb with a rope around its neck. He removes the rope to hang himself with it.
If Judas finding a rope around a dead lambs' head is described in any version of New Testament, then I will take back the following comment: the idea of "sacrificial lamb" in this scene was way too obvious.
When a movie is powerful to me, I generally cannot move at the end. Even if I try to get up from my seat, I cannot. When this movie ended, I was out of my chair immediately.
Now, onto the other major controversy swirling around this film. I agree that if someone is looking for anti-Semitic reasoning, they can find it.
One example: as has been reported, Gibson has added a symbol of Satan that flits in and out of the film every once in a while. After the opening in the Garden of Gethsemane, I can recall four times we see Satan total.
1) As Christ is being whipped, we see Satan holding a baby with scars on it
2) We see Satan standing in between the shoulders of a couple of Roman soldiers; their faces are not seen.
3) At the finale, after Jesus is dead, an image who I think is supposed to be Satan looks up to heaven and screams in agony.
However it is my fourth example that looms largest in my memory.
We see Satan slithering amongst the high priests of the Temple. This stuck out because I didn't see a similar shot of Satan slithering amongst the Romans. Read into this what you will.....
Some critics have pointed out the "sympathetic Jew who helps Christ carry the Cross to Golgotha." However, those critics have failed to point out that the Jew originally refuses to do so, saying "It's not my business." The Romans FORCE him to help carry the Cross.
There is another line of dialogue referring to Jews: "Impossible people!" Yeah Mel, I am sure that was in the New Testament too.
I am not a very religious Jew, and I wasn't offended, per se, by the examples I cite. I am putting them out there as "talking points," for these sequences have imagery or dialogue that can be read into, and fairly easily.
I did not grow up with the New Testament. I do not have it in my system as millions of others do. Based on the reaction to this movie by those of Christian or Catholic faiths, I must submit that people of those faiths are likely to be moved by this film. I was not.
I can accept that Gibson made the film to satisfy something within himself, but it appears he had no larger audience in mind beyond those in the Christian or Catholic faiths. That is why I felt alienated. This movie is not welcoming to those of other faiths.
Maybe this is the real problem:
Jews, or "non-believers" who see the film won't be able to access it or relate to it; they may be excluded from actually feeling something.
and
Christians/Catholics who have no idea what it means to be a Jew will not possibly see the problem.
So, in a way, we are all equal. We're all missing some basic understanding of the other side, which is why we need tolerance of each other.
All in all, I leave knowing that I do not like Mel Gibson as a director. I respect his right to make this film; but I don't recommend it to anyone who does not already know the New Testament well.
Paul Katz
The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (2003)
Staggering Achievement
It would seem impossible for THE RETURN OF THE KING to be more spectacular or awe-inspiring than the previous films in THE LORD OF THE RINGS trilogy, (THE FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING and THE TWO TOWERS), but the what seems impossible has been achieved.
Once again forgoing a recap of previous events, the movie gets underway with a further explanation of how the ring of power came into the hands of the creature Gollum, who in his natural life was one of the river-folk named Sméagol (Andy Serkis). It is actually his cousin Déagol who first finds the ring, but Sméagol's lust for the ring is instantaneous, and in order to gain it for himself, he murders his cousin. We are shown is small bursts how the ring consumed Sméagol, and gradually transformed him into the dastardly Gollum, who now guides Frodo Baggins and Samwise Gamgee (Elijah Wood and Sean Astin) through a secret passage into Mordor.
From there we return to Isengard and the fortress of Saruman, which, when we last saw it, was under siege from the Ents, tree-herders of Fangorn Forest. Aragon (Viggo Mortensen), Gandalf (Sir Ian McKellen), Legolas (Orlando Bloom) and Gimli (John Rhys-Davies) approach Isengard and are reunited with the two Hobbits Merry and Pippin (Dominic Monaghan and Billy Boyd). They initially return to the kingdom of Rohan, where there is great anticipation that the battle for middle earth is about to begin.
From this point, the movie is wall-to-wall excitement.
The photography and visuals are even more stunning than anything seen in the previous two films. Scenes of Aragon outside Rohan at dusk were particularly striking, and there is a truly breathtaking sequence where the Beacon of Gondor is lit, setting off a chain reaction across Middle Earth to alert all warriors that the world of men needs their aid. In addition, the stone city of Minas Tirith is one of the most breathtaking combinations of set design and computer enhancement ever put on film.
The passages of the book dealing with Frodo and Sam's journey up the steps of Minus Morgul to Shelob's Lair, the tower of Cirith Ungol and ultimately Mount Doom have been realized to absolute perfection. It all looks exactly as Professor Tolkien described in his books. The sequence with Shelob is particularly chilling, as Jackson eliminates all sound for a particular passage and allows the silence to create a major amount of tension for the audience. Shelob is, gratefully, the creepiest spider ever committed to film.
The battle on the Fields of the Pelennor features the most exhilaratingly exciting war action. Particularly thrilling is a sequence featuring Legolas and an oliphaunt. The brain is, of course, aware most of it is special effects, but they are so seamless, so utterly photo-realistic it is staggering. This is a monumental accomplishment for the digital teams at Weta. The battle for Helm's Deep in THE TWO TOWERS was impressive of course, but by all accounts, is made puny by what is seen here in RETURN OF THE KING. It's absolutely mind-blowing.
The actors, who tend to get lost in films of this scope and magnitude, hold their own and tower right along with the effects. Viggo Mortensen demonstrates an inspiring command as Aragorn finally allows himself to lead the world of men. Miranda Otto has some wonderful, audience cheering moments as Éowyn, the maiden who refuses to be kept out of battle. Bernard Hill is quite stirring as King Théoden. Certainly not to be counted out is Sir Ian McKellen as Gandalf. He has few scenes of grand acting like those in Fellowship, but when he must give his thoughts, it is quite moving.
As with the story, it is in the hands of two little hobbits that all our hopes lay. As Frodo and Sam, Elijah Wood and Sean Astin more than rise to the occasion. Wood completely feels the exhaustion and utter devastation the Ring has put him through. Astin completely holds his own as he summons his own courage to help his Mr. Frodo. In the way of both of them is the wretchedly brilliant creation that is Gollum, who gets to be really nassssssty, wicked, tricksy and false (as he would say).
The way Jackson has structured the finale, with fades to black after two of three scenes, however, makes it feel as though the movie is ending about three or four different times. I understand this device was used to demonstrate a passage of time, but perhaps there might have been a better way.
That is a minor quibble in a film that is otherwise perfection from first frame to last. It will be an absolute robbery if Peter Jackson is not awarded the Best Director Oscar at next February's ceremony. What he has accomplished with this trilogy is so monumental and groundbreaking that he simply must be recognized somehow. I also hope it wins for Best Adapted Screenplay and, for Howard Shore's rousing, tremendous score.
I cannot imagine a more successful movie-going experience this holiday season than THE RETURN OF THE KING. It is the Best Picture of the Year.