Reviews written by registered user
|18 reviews in total|
I haven't read the novel, but what I can say about Practical Magic is that
it's a perfect example of a very well edited trailer that was highly
successful in its goal of making the film look cuter, smarter, sexier and
more entertaining than it actually was.
Nicole Kidman and Sandra Bullock were fine, though it might have been interesting to see them cast against type in reverse roles - Sandy as the Bad Girl, Nicole as the Good Girl. They are both best in this film when they are flirtatious, sarcastic, drunk and hungover, but I think one emotion which neither one of them is terrific at expressing is fear (Bullock's a little better in this department). Unfortunately, because the film is trying to balance light comedy with dark forces there is call for a lot of gasping and swooning that is highly unbecoming to two such talented eyelash-batters. And most of the gasping and swooning is done with a complete lack of humor.
Also - a contrived ending in which all the women in the town who have previously taunted the Owens sisters for 20 years with cat-calls of witchery and projectile garden vegetables are suddenly interested in coming over to their house to help them perform an exorcism. Why the sudden change? It's insulting to sum it up with "there's a little witch in every woman." Hundreds of years of fear cannot be overcome by a single telephone call. It's absolute silliness to watch these women prance around, embracing witchcraft when they have expended so much energy denouncing it.
Overall this is a fluffy, erratic and unorganized movie whose success is wholly dependent on the attractiveness of its two adorable stars (both, in this case, well-heeled in the latest neo-bohemian fashions).
I love Hal Hartley's work, partially because in his efforts to place style
just a bit higher than substance he's yielded some really interesting
results. Language, pointedly written and used as quick barbs with
portentous spaces between them, can say a lot when paired with simple,
lovely imagery. That's his forte. He paints a visual picture of ordinary
suburbia with the resonance of a Hopper painting. He makes gas stations,
cheap diners and run-down houses into poetry. And the people who live in
them walk amongst these ordinary places like anesthetized automatons waiting
to be de-thawed by feeling. It's fun to watch them wake/warm up.
Henry Fool is so completely different from his other work to date. It is an epic, certainly - it's LONG. The stylistic language remains but it is longer, softer, more philosophic and thus often more alienating. I think the film suffers a little from its scope - is it about Henry or is it about Simon? Is it making a value judgment about a life lived AS poetry or as a life lived THROUGH poetry? Is pure inspiration as noble as pure success?
I liked it, but I walked away from it exhausted and with no lingering images to grab onto. In comparison to his other films, so much is said, felt and expressed - and so many ideas are thrown about and examined - maybe I'm just in a state of shock from the sudden change.
Plot aside, Thomas Jay Ryan is an intense, sensual and exciting actor. Somebody put him in more films, please.
There's a lot of angsting and whining in this movie that I didn't relate to
when I was an optimistic college student, but now that I too am joining the
ranks of the confused and unemployed post-graduate, I look upon its memory
Eric Stoltz is very amusing as the eternal student/bartender. A friend of mine is particularly fond of the Otis character, the clown of the film and a master of deflated monosyllabic responses (check the same actor out in Mr. Jealousy - he has wonderful mastery of the trapped upperclass dork). Josh Hamilton does a great job expressing idealized romantic yearning, especially in the last scene of the film, which I won't give away but which is familiarly and achingly bittersweet.
If you're a stickler for realism you might say to yourself, "Yeah right, like these people just graduated from college, they're all in their 30s." If you're the type that can look past the fact that Olivia D'Abo played an 18 year old 10 years ago on The Wonder Years then you'll be OK.
(And if you like Josh Hamilton and Parker Posey, check out House of Yes)
One short film script repeated three times in three different cities in the
United States, Europe and Japan. The dialogue is identical in each; the
plot plays out the violent and alienating repercussions of chronic
flirtation and self-destructive covetousness. The subtle differences in each
scenario are due (theoretically) to the changes in setting, sexual
orientation and cultural backdrop.
If you're a Hal Hartley fan you'll probably enjoy this film to some extent; if you're not then you may be easily put off by the repetition of what could be seen as stiff artsy banter. The dialogue is clever, sharp, witty - characteristically quirky Hal Hartley writing. But the first scenario, set in New York and involving Martin Donovan, Parker Posey and that other favorite Hal Hartley actor from Simple Men (Bill something), is easily the best of the three and the high point of the film.
There's some really nice editing in this film, for those who have an interest in technical considerations.
An inside peek at the goings-on of an unusually attractive Alcoholics
Anonymous meeting. Richard Lewis's character exists to provide a moral
center for the film as it examines his desperate efforts to stay sober. The
various members of the AA group provide different glimpses at what
contributes to alcoholism and demonstrate that there is no one profile for
what constitutes a "drunk."
There are very nice performances in this film, particularly those of a pre-Ally McBeal Calista Flockhart and Parker Posey. The film's scene stealer and the most memorable drunk of all, however, is monologuist Spalding Grey, doing a hilarious turn as a church choir member who shows up at the wrong church. In the midst of explaining his blunder to the group he rhapsodizes brilliantly on the importance of Guinness in his life and discovers quietly that gee, maybe he too has a drinking problem.
Overall the individual performances divert attention from the main storyline and provide more of a center for the film than Lewis, whose story is ultimately uninteresting. But check it out for Spalding Grey, who is probably the most natural actor in the film and a true pleasure to watch.
This one is a film about four temps at a nondescript office who bond and
ultimate disband due to a rash of office thefts and mutual
It's kind of boring, and it drags quite a bit after a while. The camera angles can be interesting here and there, but it's an office setting, so the production design, after a while, becomes overly familiar and induces (much like the real office place) fantasies of sleep.
High points: Parker Posey has a truly hilarious moment in a scene at a happy hour buffet. Lisa Kudrow does some good work as the office slut and would-be actress.
Low points: While Toni Collette has an expressively sullen face, after a while you just see way too much of it. And the contrived plot surrounding a number of office thefts of minor objects doesn't quite come off as cleverly as it's meant to.
An energetic nostalgia piece that says more about the timelessness of teenage open-field pot parties and keggers than the 1970s in particular. It's great fun and there's something in it for everyone who grew up in the suburbs, regardless of the decade. Matthew McConnaughy's big debut.
Even gangsters can suffer from a touch of humanity now and
In between crazed camera moves and wild performances are moments of surprisingly quiet beauty and odd transcience (signified by the softly blowing hat floating its way through the woods). Gabriel Byrne makes for a terrific strong-but-silent man in conflict. John Turturro's shoe-licking coward is equally affecting.
I've never seen another film as well-served by visual hyperbole. The control the Coen brothers exhibit in the direction of this film is amazing. Not everyone can move easily between the hyper-active and the quiet. The balance that's struck in this film between showy visual trickery and poetic resonance is really rare.
Some people think this movie is mean-spirited, but I disagree...
I too think it's a hilarious film and more than a little pathetic. Christopher Guest has a way of painting a richly comedic but very extremist picture of losers with delusions of grandeur. Luckily these people are to be taken as good-hearted comic anomalies - you like them AND you laugh at them (i.e. Parker Posey's grammatically-challenged Dairy Queen employee), which lets you off the hook a little.
This is a very funny film. Ignore the naysayers who claim he's poking fun at Midwestern suburbanites and listen to the critics (most or all of whom loved it).
A Long Island woman finds a love letter in her house and suspects her
husband of cheating. Her over-protective (and very pro-active) family
convinces her to confront her husband at his workplace in Manhattan. They
all (wife, mom, dad, sister and sister's boyfriend) pile into the station
wagon to hunt down the scoundrel. In their efforts to find him they meet a
bunch of interesting characters and learn a little bit more about their own
feelings for one another.
This movie is so sweet in its examination of family loyalty and so honest in its examination of long-failed relationships in denial that I feel it is easily one of the most satisfying video rentals I've ever experienced. There's enough comedy throughout to provide laughs (especially any and all jokes at the expense of Liev Schreiber's pretentious novelist) and the realistic sisterly affection shared by Parker Posey and Hope Davis is genuinely touching.
Also provides a subtle examination of the Long Islander's relationship to Manhattan - the latter acting as an unfamiliar, answerless maze through which the family has to pass in order to find the truth.
|Page 1 of 2:|| |