schmucko Reviews

Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (2004)

The perfect date movie for neurotic couples

[10/10 · 16 March 2004]

"Masterpiece" would be an odd word to describe any new script written by Charlie Kaufman. After all, in his brief career he has penned screenplay after brilliant screenplay--from "Being John Malkovich" to "Adaptation" to "Confessions of a Dangerous Mind" (we'll except here "Human Nature," because I have yet to see it [and it doesn't appear to be too popular]). How, then, could anything he writes now be considered a masterpiece?

Well, riddle me this: what if Kaufman took any of his brilliantly imaginative metaphysical premises, and added a dash of the intensely personal?

The answer? "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind," naturally. This film marks Kaufman's first foray into a genre no one would have guessed he would dare set foot in, namely the romantic comedy. Jim Carrey and Kate Winslet are cast as star-crossed lovers, each of whom utilizes the services of Lacuna Inc., a company that eliminates all memories specific to another person. It is a revolutionary process, but an experimental one, and when it goes awry... well, that's where our story begins and immediately veers off into territory I can't tell you about lest I spoil it.

This film is quite bittersweet, and remarkably universal. It's nice to see the screenwriter focus on a very human story after a chain of sarcastic romps through, say, writer's block ("Adaptation") and vicarious living as a means of escapism ("Malkovich"). The same goes for director Michel Gondry, who has always walked on the surreal side as well. That is not to say that this product of their collaboration is not surreal, as it certainly is, but that it takes pains not to leave its audience behind for too long--to use an old cliche, it spends as much time with its feet on the ground as with its head in the clouds. The result is a movie that is to long-standing couples what "Lost In Translation" is to friends who aren't quite looking for something more.

Meanwhile, Jim Carrey turns out his best performance since the "Truman Show"/"Man in the Moon" days, and Kate Winslet her best since... actually, when was her last movie? Seems like it's been a while. Welcome back, Kate, and great work. Oh yeah--loved you in "Quills."

Finally, as an aside to Elijah Wood, Kirsten Dunst, Mark Ruffalo and Tom Wilkinson fans: don't be alarmed, as your favorite actors do a wonderful job. Sadly for you, though, this is pretty strictly a two-character film, and the folks who work for Lacuna are really only there to further the story of the leads. Mind you, it's an honorable task, I assure you.

In summary, while only time will tell how it will be received by the general public (I write having just returned from a preview), we can all sleep easy knowing that another opus has been added to the Kaufman canon. Soon we will have no choice but to accept that he owns us all.

The Fan (1996)

not that bad

[14 April 2000]

okay, this is hardly a great movie, but it does have an interesting premise, and the script is suitably interesting. for one thing, it's interesting that de niro's character, ostensibly the protagonist, is so thoroughly unlikable (and, in fact, the villain when all is said and done). it's a pretty rare film in which we follow the psychotic villain around.

the soundtrack, which was heavy on nine inch nails, was very well used. the scene in which de niro throws his knife to kill a bug on a wall was made ten times cooler by the climactic NIN track that accompanied it.

cinematographically, though, the movie was pretty strange, and at times confusing (when i don't think it was trying to be)... the sauna murder scene was filmed as though it were a dream--first with de niro flashing back to his (incorrect) version of the events that preceded the killing, and then the slow-mo, again NIN-accompanied, act itself. it took me about five minutes to realize that it had actually happened.

from a baseball standpoint, as a couple of others have mentioned, the game scenes are pretty ridiculous. every time someone hits the ball, scott cuts to a shot in which a ball is seen arcing as though thrown by someone with a bad arm. i was, however, pretty pleased to see the names of real baseball players in the stunt crew credits.

overall, this movie is a pretty cut-and-dried psychological thriller--not too horribly bad, but not with anything particularly new to offer either. it's probably worth a rent.

BASEketball (1998)

really quite hilarious

[8/10 · 4 February 2000]

one obviously can't use, for BASEketball, the same criteria one would use to evaluate an "american beauty," for instance. one can, however, put this movie up against airplane! and the naked gun series, and in this context it stands up quite well.

while the writing credit is given to one or more of the zuckers (i forget exactly), it is quite clear that, if not doing an uncredited rewrite, stone and parker at least improvised much of the dialogue or something. it all sounds like a south park episode, and that's a good thing. while relying a lot more on profanity than the zuckers' other movies, the comedy is still quite vital and, ultimately, wet-yourself hilarious. the comedic strengths of all the collaborators makes for a good blend and, while this movie died critically and commercially, it's not because the cast and crew weren't trying.

yasmine bleeth is the coolest member of this cast, in a way--her charity worker was sweet and cute and sexy in that not-sexy way... a really understated performance, and one which played well against the over-the-top actions carried out by her male costars.

in the end, the best bit of praise i could give this movie is that it is one of the two or three films, in the tradition of "happy gilmore," that i can watch over and over without getting sick of it. since it's down to ten bucks for a new copy nearly everywhere, i would recommend that any slapstick lover grab up a copy immediately.

Dogma (1999)

bad bad bad.

[3/10 · 4 February 2000]

this is the movie that made me an ex-kevin smith fan. honestly, i'm not even christian, and wasn't the least offended by the subject matter--as a fan of the cinema, i was offended by its horrendous pace, its dumbed-down presentation and its lack of nearly anything commendable.

the premise is great, and i was really looking forward to seeing the movie--had been for years, in fact. little did i know that i was in for a self-indulgent, preachy, plodding 2+ hour waste of film. the movie would probably have made a good one and a half hour flick. see, the problem is that a good half of the movie is taken up by a new character (they join linda fiorentino as though she were dorothy from the wizard of oz) coming into the plot, then explaining who he/she is and how he/she fits into the overall story.

i really felt sorry for fiorentino--she tried really hard to make something of the lines given to her, but no one can craft a good performance out of a litany of "what do you mean?"s and "why me?"s. i silently promised myself that i would scream if another sitting-around-a-table scene ensued, and silently berated mr. smith every time it happened again.

alanis morrissette makes a cute god, i suppose, if only because she flashes her boxers when doing a handstand--it's lovely that god is represented as so childlike, and fits the rest of the movie well. and, as always, jay and bob's scenes are funny, punctuating a long, boring film that doesn't even try to be funny that often. there: i've praised a couple of aspects.

all in all, though, from the pretentious disclaimer at the top of the movie until the nauseating restatement of the moral at the end (fiorentino's last line is "i don't believe it, but i have a good idea"--retch), i was thoroughly insulted by Dogma. screw the money--i want my time back. i suppose i'll have to get used to the fact that kevin smith probably isn't going to make another "clerks" or "mallrats," and that he is lost to me forever.

Three Kings (1999)

not bad, but decidedly overrated

[6/10 · 4 February 2000]

Three Kings is a movie that has gotten a lot of praise, and, judging from the average vote on imdb, has been popular with movie buffs as well. ultimately, though, it's just an uneasy blend of comedy and heavy-handed, preachy drama (see mark wahlberg's hostage scenes) and, with the exception of the from-the-bullet's-point-of-view shots, it offers little that can't be seen in "full metal jacket," or any other war drama for that matter.

it is a movie in desperate need of an identity, an emotional throughline. i did find myself laughing occasionally (toward the beginning) and cringing (toward the end), but only the last scene, at the border, had any real power for me, and by that point it was too late to save the rest of the movie.

i'll probably give the movie a rent when it comes out just to make sure i didn't miss something big, but i would imagine Three Kings won't be joining the ranks of my video library till it hits $5 at blockbuster.

Happy Gilmore (1996)

among the most re-viewable movies i can imagine

[9/10 · 4 February 2000]

Happy Gilmore is the closest thing adam sandler has made to a masterpiece. sandler's goofball side ("billy madison") is intact here, but is kept in check--and thus made less irritating--by his sentimental side ("big daddy"). the two are enough in balance that the movie is enjoyable by both sports-comedy fans and romantic-comedy fans. in fact, it's hard to imagine a person who wouldn't enjoy Happy on some level.

this is the one movie to which i most often turn when i want to watch a comedy, and that is the strongest praise i can give. it always makes me laugh, and, as corny as it is to say so, warms my heart as well. honestly, it's just a sweet movie, and one about golf to boot.

Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace (1999)

a really great beginning

[7/10 · 20 May 1999]

i was pretty sure this movie was going to be awful. as a fan of the original star wars trilogy, i thought that at best it would be disappointing, and at worst insulting. fortunately, i was wrong.

my complaints first: yes, jar-jar is intensely irritating, though he becomes less so as the movie progresses (and he stops talking so much). yes, it's a little bit too fast-paced to give the same feel as the first trilogy. no, darth maul doesn't get nearly the screen times a bad mother such as himself deserves. and yes, the CGI definitely can be distracting at times, as they frequently seem out of place.

apart from that, though, the movie is incredible, and certainly a worthy addition into the lineup. the screenplay had enough moments where real fans could tell what was about to happen to keep us happy, and the presentation had enough eye candy to sate everyone else.

ewan mcgregor should win an award for accent copying. his take on alec guinness is uncanny. liam neeson was wonderful as qui-gon, maintaining the same jedi calm that made obi-wan so impressive in the original trilogy. natalie portman did her job pretty well, and jake lloyd made me stop hating him with his performance (although he still looks a tad too much like the kid from liar liar for my tastes).

oh yeah--and ray park is now my hero. ewan and liam handled their light sabers well, but darth maul's stunts were absolute jaw-droppers. the entire three-way duel scene, which was effectively intercut with a couple of other battles, rocked intensely.

the special effects are just ridiculous, they're so good. both cities on naboo are gorgeous, as is coruscant (i nearly soiled myself the first time they showed coruscant). the CG droids all look great, and there are plenty of them. however, there are some effects that are too showy to seem at home in a star wars flick (the little screen splash when queen amidala finishes her transmission at the beginning, for instance). overall, though, this is a minor concern.

in fact, overall this movie takes its place as number two in my heart, right behind a new hope--certainly a worthy addition to the series.

The House of Yes (1997)

incredible

[8/10 · 6 May 1999]

Seldom does a movie manage to be at the same time this dark and this funny. Nearly every line of dialogue is wickedly sarcastic--as a playwright, I spent of the time during my first viewing wishing that I could write such biting dialogue.

Parker Posey is wonderful, as is Josh Hamilton as her brother-with-benefits. The mother (the actress' name escapes me right now) is also wonderful, despite her deficient screen time. Even Tori Spelling--pariah of good actors everywhere--does a great job as Hamilton's stupid/naive fiancee (a bit of helpful typecasting). In fact, only Freddy Prinze jr. really didn't do that well in this movie, but his performance was by no means bad enough to ruin it. He seemed handily the most awkward of the bunch.

At any rate, I wound up watching it again, two days after the first time, and would recommend that anyone who hasn't done so follow my lead. Not only doesn't it lose anything on second screening, but the whole thing gets better (check out the Posey/Spellling "Marty's first girlfriend" scene)...

Showgirls (1995)

not great.

[6 May 1999]

I've just read all the comments that are available on this movie, and I have to weigh in here. First of all, it seems the Europeans like the movie and the Americans do not. Fortunately, the Americans who haven't been objecting to the nudity and such, which is totally conscionable if it's forwarding some purpose. In this case, however, I cannot see any purpose whatsoever.

I am an american who doesn't particularly like other Americans and seldom agree with them, but I was nearly embarrassed to be seen leaving the theatre after witnessing this celluloid nightmare. Fortunately, I only paid a dollar to see it (and, oddly, I was sitting in that theatre with an audience made up largely of senior citizens... they must have been "Saved by the Bell" fans).

I'm a fan of good films (from Casablanca to the Truman Show), and this film failed worse than any I've ever seen on that level.

I'm a fan of camp (from the original Star Trek to To Wong Foo), and this movie fared only slightly better on that level.

I'm a fan of pornography (from pure sex to down on the farm 3), and this film didn't even cover that area particularly well, apart from one lap-dance scene, which was wonderful.

If, as the Europeans aver, Showgirls was supposed to be funny and/or satirical, I can certainly admire that intent. However, it really gave the viewer no clues whatsoever to suggest that. I never once knowingly winked at the dead-on portrayal of Americana--I was too busy staring at the screen with my mouth hanging open, wondering what atrocity would be next to greet me (the on-the-rag scene and what-the-hell rape scene were the biggest train wrecks).

I do agree, however, with one earlier reviewer: everyone should see it, just to say they have.

Casablanca (1942)

maybe, probably, the best ever

[9/10 · 6 May 1999]

Bogart is great. Raines is great. Henreid is great. Bergman is... pretty.

Seriously, this film is the funniest (in a sophisticated way) pre-'60s movie since Chaplin and Keaton. It is also among the most dramatically powerful, depicting moral dilemmas which, while not necessarily specifically applicable in a peacetime society, do speak to some universal ethical code. The last 20-30 minutes are filled with the best plot twists I've ever witnessed (hell, the last 10 minutes for that matter).

Bogart shows an emotional range in this movie which is roughly akin, in terms of pleasant surprises, to Jim Carrey's in the Truman Show. It was a breakthrough role, and probably his best character. Of course, the screenplay is full of quotes that have been parroted (if incorrectly) down through the decades, but the lesser-known bits of dialogue in between are just as great ("aren't you the kind of girl who tells?").

Everyone who reads this review has undoubtedly already seen the movie, so I won't bother plugging it. Actually I will. See this movie at all costs; it's the best chance you'll ever have to see filmmaking at its most perfect.