cathcacr Reviews

Inception (2010)

Christopher Nolan: Most Gimmicky Filmmaker Ever?

[5/10 · 18 December 2010]

I've seen many of director Christopher Nolan's films by now. Here are my thoughts on each of them:

Following (1998)

The craft is really superb and the thematic elements are intriguing, but on the whole it comes off as very gimmicky. In the end I felt kinda cheated.

Memento (2000)

The craft is really superb and the thematic elements are intriguing, but on the whole it comes off as very gimmicky. In the end I felt kinda cheated.

Insomnia (2002)

The craft is really superb and the thematic elements are intriguing, but on the whole it comes off as very gimmicky. In the end I felt kinda cheated.

Batman Begins (2005)

After feeling kinda cheated by previous Nolan efforts, I did not bother with this one. (What truly serious director does Batman, anyway?)

The Prestige (2006)

The craft is really superb and the thematic elements are intriguing, but on the whole it comes off as very gimmicky. In the end I felt kinda cheated.

The Dark Knight (2008)

Watched this one because of all the high ratings on the internet sites. The craft is really superb and the thematic elements are intriguing, but on the whole it comes off as very gimmicky. In the end I felt kinda cheated. (What truly serious director does Batman, anyway?)

Inception (2010)

Nolan's best effort yet, and while the craft is really superb and the thematic elements are certainly intriguing, on the whole it comes off as *extremely*, pointlessly gimmicky. In the end I felt kinda cheated.

Overall assessment:

M. Night Shyamalan with more elaborate gimmicks. Emperor Nolan isn't wearing any clothes, you philistines!

Blood Diamond (2006)

Just so we're clear, DiCaprio's character is monstrous

[23 December 2009]

Let's see if we have this right: in order to acquire the diamond, Archer (DiCaprio) orders a bombing raid on a village with innocent slaves (including children). If Connelly's character knew about this, would she have been nearly this friendly to him over the phone at the end? Did the scriptwriters really think this one through?

I suppose we were supposed to sympathize in some way with Archer throughout the film. And I actually did. He seemed like a man who would get his hands dirty in pursuit of his high-risk obsessions. He's crafty, skilled, and smart. And then we get thrown for a loop 90 percent of the way through the film. Then we're left wondering just how and by what Archer is motivated. After ordering his bombing raid, he seems to show compassion towards Hounsou's character, and yet why? He might as well murder him as well and make off with the diamond. He was willing to murder his only son, after all, the son being the only reason Hounsou went with him. Which is worse? And why does Hounsou treat this monster with any compassion afterward? It doesn't make any sense.

Director Edward Zwick pulled this same sort of nonsensical stuff in the climax of _The Last Samurai_, where Cruise's army runs straight to their deaths for no good reason. Zwick appears to be little more than a run-of-the-mill Hollywood director ruined by the system, producing cheap thrills irrespective of the importance of underlying substance. Go back and look how it's in pretty much every film he's made.

Bad Company (1972)

What a gem

[9/10 · 22 December 2005]

In giving this an 8/10 rating, that goes into the top 7% or so of about 2500 movies I've viewed so far. Indeed, it falls right into that category of "one of the great films you most likely haven't seen." Why movies like this go unrecognized like they have is beyond me. If you've seen it, you already know what I'm talking about, so I wonder if I'm preaching to the converted here. I doubt I have much to say beyond what any other reviewers have already covered. This is a gritty and real, and yet also romanticized, take on the Western, beautifully shot (by DP Gordon Willis of the Godfather movies - enough said) and littered with dark comedy, not of the laugh-out-loud variety, but of the "these guys are so sad" variety. It also happens to be the second movie I've seen with both Jeff Bridges and David Huddleston, some 25 or so years prior to an actualized cult classic. The combination of these two actors in a film, appearing together in scenes only briefly, seems somehow, inexplicably, to touch a film with a certain genius.

Schizopolis (1996)

"Caution: This film makes wide turns. Following too close may result in injury."

[9/10 · 10 December 2004]

I will echo a comment that someone made about -The Big Lebowski- (my #1 favorite comedy followed by this delightful mess). "Warning: this film transmits on a strictly limited wavelength." If you don't catch this curveball, you're likely to be bored. I won't say that if you don't like it on first viewing, then you're never going to like it. In my case, certain movies get more enjoyable on repeat viewings even after receiving a ho-hum response the first time around. This is one of those movies. With a narrative more fractured than your average David Lynch film, there are connections between one scene and another that jump out and take notice only on repeat viewings, sort of like "portals" from one part of the movie to another. Music that plays, pictures shown on the wall, one-sided phone conversations, that sort of thing. Aside from the already-limited-wavelength humor, these amplify the laugh factor. This is a movie destined for some kind of limited cult-following someday, but keeping to a murmur level when you're standing next to an air conditioner. The Criterion DVD has some good features and outtakes, like the "Maximum Busy Muscle" segment extolling the virtues of all products vinyl.

Update Nov. '06. Re-watching this almost on a whim, and it all comes together (such as it is) even more. This is truly hilarious, a comedy masterpiece reveling in all its many absurdities, which come one after the other at a highly accelerated rate. I'm upping my vote from 9 to 10.

"You will learn something from me here today." --Elmo Oxygen (Noooo!!! Oooogghghgh!!)

Medea (1988 TV Movie)

Tremendous script; should have been a masterpiece, but let down by production values

[9/10 · 20 November 2004]

This would have been completely marvelous had Dreyer actually lived to direct this. The strength of the script is obvious to anyone who sees it, but (I'm voiding this comment if it turns out that the DVD transfer is simply shoddy) Von Trier's pre-Dogme Dogme-style camera makes a mockery of Dreyer's intentions. Von Trier makes a disclaimer that he isn't out to make a "Dreyer film," but that doesn't excuse the Dogme-style visual work. The true master Dreyer made films that are supposed to last; this Dogme fad is a travesty: lots of otherwise really good material is just getting mangled for the sake of misguided, thoroughly pretentious (nay, hypocritical) notions of "realism" in cinema. This is a comment on the Dogme-fad-artists' *style*, which panders to the (insert any number of negative descriptive terms) post-modernist sensibilities of the college-age pseudo-cineastes who worship it.

That bit of frustration aside, my impression of this film is otherwise overwhelmingly positive. The good aspects of this have Dreyer written all over it. Maybe it can be re-made by someone who actually respects cinematic form and presentation, not some rebellious child playing around with a (low number)mm camera.

Hey, I'm not saying that the visual storytelling wasn't otherwise superb, but for crying out loud, let's actually *see* it as it is, rather than like it's being put through some yellow filter and fuzzed up. Dreyer, unafraid to present his subject matter in the starkest terms, could do it. Why won't Von Trier?

Nevertheless, see it, and then do yourself the benefit of imagining away the travesty part.

Dead Man (1995)

Maybe just how B & W should be photographed

[9/10 · 19 September 2004]

Cinematography "spoilers"...

I say "maybe" because, for myself, I uphold Orson Welles (cf. -The Trial-) as the standard, and this does vary somewhat from Orson's style. But it may set a standard in its own right. Slightly in the direction of sepia tone, with stark contrasts existing in nearly every frame between pitch black and shiny white. Indeed, there is pitch-black in pretty much every frame where Johnny Depp's hair is in the frame.

What, substantively speaking, does the stark B & W photography do in advancing or complementing narrative? My best guess is that throughout essentially the entirety of the movie, William Blake is wandering through a netherworld, a world where he doesn't quite belong. The town of Machine is (and it's quite literally stated) a gateway to hell, where things just aren't quite right or done in any usual way. On the run with a spiritual accompanist (I won't say "guide," since his "advice" is too opaque, the journey is already determined, and he's more a helper along that journey) through the wilderness, his (pitch black) blood continues to seep; graceful movement brings them through bright-white birch trees (one can't help but think there's a nod to -Andrei Rublev- here), and shades-of-black tree branches form a mesh against an off-white sky (nods to the hallucinations of -Jacob's Ladder-?).

Those are just some of the highlights. The cinematography is the standout element here; the scoring is take-or-leave, and the storytelling process seems to be on the thin side.

After a third viewing over about as many years, I raised my score from 7 to 8 out of 10 (putting it in the top 7% of about 2,000 movies viewed). Well worth checking out, for the visual experience alone.

Gloria (1980)

I was favorably impressed; certainly outdoes -Leon-

[5 August 2004]

Tastes may vary on this one, but there's much about this film that's endearing to viewers. It strikes you that the story isn't exactly the only of its kind (I see it as a precursor to -Leon- and probably takes cues from the delightful -Paper Moon-, but others of its "kind" are hard to think of), but it's about as well-done as you might expect. Some may not care for the Cassavetes stylistic touches, but here they are not especially intrusive. Gloria's a tough and likeable "bitch" with a moral compass, rightfully the center of the story. It outdoes -Leon- by not investing too much script capital in "developing" the child character. (It was primarily that aspect of -Leon- that annoyed me most.) This is straightforward, without the frills and gimmicks, emotional or otherwise. I do plan on watching the recent version with Sharon Stone, but don't expect to be as satisfied as with this.

I'd give it a minimum of 7/10 on my own, tough scale. I am surprised this is so little-known compared to -Leon-.

Irreversible (2002)

More interesting to reflect on, than to watch

[7/10 · 28 March 2004]

-Irreversible- is not a movie that likes to be watched; the director deliberately repulses the audience for 90 minutes, before capping it off with a beautiful avant-garde-style end to accentuate the contrast between "before" and "after." And so, it has an odd effect: it is repulsive to the sense, but more satisfying on a reflective level. That said, I don't intend on watching it again. As everyone knows, the technical style is as off-putting and hard to stomach as the content. If this is really as brilliant as all the supporters claim it is, maybe Gaspar can put his brilliance to work creating a work of an integrated beauty, that invites repeat viewings. With all the presumed hommages to Kubrick therein, maybe he can take some cues from -Barry Lyndon- (or Tarkovsky, if he wants to stick with a more avant-garde approach) . . . .

Heaven's Gate (1980)

More or less, -Days of Heaven- stretched to 219 minutes

[6/10 · 23 February 2004]

I'm surprised, looking through the first 20 comments listed, not to see any reference to -Days of Heaven-. Both are director-fueled, idiosyncratic presentations of visions of the American West, wonderfully photographed, rather thinly plotted. Well, this one is more, shall we say, "grittily" photographed and not as idyllic, not with the DVD-esque sheen. Malick is not as prone as Cimino (see also -The Deer Hunter-, especially the first hour-or-so filled mostly with the party scene) to over-bloating the story at the expense of pacing. -Days of Heaven- can be irksome in its own ways, but it gets its story told in a timely fashion; -Heaven's Gate- is obviously, clearly, drawn out too long, without the benefit of an adept editor's craft or a scriptwriter's focus.

It's most unfortunate, too, since this could have been a classic, and you end up feeling sorry for it as it stands. Personally, I really wanted to like this, and was "into" it for even as long as an hour, but started to get tedious, and then got more tedious, and more tedious still, and then some more, and then culminating in a shoot-em-up sequence that was as unfocused and overly drawn-out as the previous 2 hours.

By coincidence, it happens that I saw -The Jack Bull- just days before viewing this -- and, as a portrayal of the ways of late-19th century Wyoming frontier, the "lawlessness" and so forth, it gets it done with much more economy.

Still, a 6.1 IMDb rating underrates this film, and I was surprised to see it that low. (Given the tendency of quality for films with a given rating, I was expecting to see a 6.8.) It *does* manage to reflect the amount of work that went into it. It's not a bad film, not a great one, just an interesting, otherwise well-done work dragged out way too thin and long to be great. On the whole, it rightfully falls somewhere right around the mean, between 6.5 and 7. (A strong 2.5 stars out of 4.)

Conspirators of Pleasure (1996)

I'm not supposed to love this as much as I do...

[9/10 · 24 April 2003]

One-word summary: Masterpiece. This one keeps me mesmerized every frame for the whole 80 minutes. Surrealistic, fantastic, bizarre, fetishistic, fascinating, it is Jan Svankmajer's finest excursion into animania. Why this work, and this artist, toil in relative obscurity is beyond me. (Makes me wonder what *else* out there is this good but this hard to discover.) It is a guilty pleasure, indeed, to watch this, but as a work of cinema, it is wonderful. (The subject matter is quite incidental, really; my mind could easily be massaged for 80 minutes like this with just about anything Svank could concoct.) I daresay it's in or near my top 10 favorites, but it isn't supposed to be...

Persona (1966)

Pure cinema; unlike anything else I've seen

[9/10 · 12 February 2003]

This one stands alone among the all-time great works of cinema. It has a purity, grace and simplicity that brings to mind some words from reviews of another masterpiece by another cinematic legend: "A perfect film . . . I ask that you give yourself over to the experience." -Persona- is the ultimate art-film. Haunting, mysterious, and wondrously enigmatic, but as filmic expression goes, it is unsurpassed. As entertainment-film, it succeeds by being as engaging as any great film, period. Liv Ullmann is unforgettable in her beauty and her silence. Given how it stands alone, it is exceedingly difficult to recommend other movies to those who love this one, but other personal favorites that possibly bear mentioning include: -Mirror-, -Solaris-, -Nostalghia-, -Woman in the Dunes-, -2001: A Space Odyssey-, -Barry Lyndon-, -Eyes Wide Shut-, -Mulholland Dr.-, Bergman's own -Cries and Whispers-, -Hour of the Wolf- and -Wild Strawberries-.

But words really don't justify -Persona-'s greatness; you will just have to experience this for yourself.

Chicago (2002)

Two excellent musical pieces don't save this for me...

[5/10 · 10 January 2003]

You know the ones . . . the two back-to-back musical pieces about smack-dab in the middle of this one. Strings and mirrors, hint hint. Other than that, I wasn't especially entertained, much the same with that top musical of 2001 that also had audiences and critics raving. I have this feeling that the directors and producers of this new wave of musicals realize that they just can't top -Singin' in the Rain-, and want to try something different for today's audiences. In the process, they've made it difficult for some of us to see why we had gotten interested in musicals to begin with. I think it has to do with the fact that these old-time musicals had enough substance behind them to make them great movies, not just flashy set-pieces. I dunno, this kind of thing may delight plenty of folks, but count me out of subsequent viewings....

Punch-Drunk Love (2002)

To 2002 what -Lebowski- was to 1998

[9/10 · 10 January 2003]

It won't get much attention at the silly awards shows, and many, many people can't stand it. That said, it was delightful for those seeking an eccentric film with a personality, far away from the usual mold. And so, like -The Big Lebowksi- (1998), it will have lasting appeal and impact, and therefore won't be going away (unlike, say, the Best Picture Oscar-winner of 1998 . .. I've almost forgotten what it's called). Quotable, absurd, and downright minimalist in its own way, it's eminently watchable for us select few. Of course, my opinion may change after watching it again a few times....

What Lies Beneath (2000)

Disappointment coming from Zemeckis

[4/10 · 14 October 2002]

Not that Bob Zemeckis was in the pantheon of Great Directors, but everything he did up until this movie was original and well above average. This is just run-of-the-mill stuff you've already seen hundreds of times, and reaks of a Hollywood sell-out by Mr. Z. Overlong and predictable, nothing special. I'm being a little on the generous side in giving this one a 5 out of 10. How useful the IMDb has been as a guide: quite consistently, I haven't come to expect much from anything rated much above a 6.5, so I figure that I should have expected that this would be an ill-spent 2 hours. Two thumbs up for the IMDb, and lesson gratefully learned. (BTW, I thought that Zemeckis' follow-up, -Cast Away-, was a welcome return of the Zemeckis we'd all come to know and like.)

Léon: The Professional (1994)

Really nice concept, but grueling in execution

[8/10 · 11 September 2002]

First off, lovers of this film need to get some film-viewing maturity. Take just about any film in the Top 250, and I daresay that very, very few will have this massive a gap of opinion between that of the "top 1000 voters" (7.6 average) and the viewership at large (8.3 average). And there's a very good reason for this; an experienced viewer can separate the virtues from the vices of this film, and this one is too long on the vices. The set-up is great: merciless hitman is humanized, serves as protector and guide to young girl. This *could* have been a great movie had it not fallen so flat in how it's executed. Maybe it's something about kid actors, but the scenes where Mathilda (Portman, who shows promising signs of her deficiences as older actress) has anything to say draaaaaag on and on. For any number of reasons you can imagine, the dialogue is cause for nervous fidgeting. The attempts at humor make you wince. The attempts at profundity will make you laugh. The intriguing plot degenerates into artificial, sometimes preposterous, scenarios. The highlight of the film? Gary Oldman as the villain. That should tell you something right there. His flailing and jerking around in the police restroom was the most enjoyable moment of the movie. Maybe Oldman himself realized that this movie wasn't to be taken all too seriously. I wouldn't recommend the DVD version to anyone, as it makes the experience a grueling one. A ridiculous restaurant sequence, among other things, is removed for the American release. (Would have made for an interesting "outtakes" section on the DVD, at best.) I gave this one a 5/10. In the hands of a really skilled director and top-notch actors, this could have been great.

Running on Empty (1988)

Really liked this one

[8/10 · 26 May 2002]

Why this has an average rating of only 7.3 is beyond me. This is really darn good, maybe not a "masterpiece" as some of the other reviews have stated, but one of those criminally underrated and overlooked movies. And, heck, starring River Phoenix for crying out loud. Why had I never heard of it? Yeah, it's got a touch of cheesy '80s things about it (music, clothing, etc.) but I've learned to overlook that sort of thing if it's actually a good story. Take this and another coming-of-age movie, _This Boy's Life_ (starring Robert De Niro and Leonardo DiCaprio -- why hadn't I ever heard of that one either?), and you have a couple of the best great-but-underrated movies in recent memory. I'd love a good explanation for why this should only get a 7.3 out of 10, given the quality of a bunch of material with a higher average rating. (I thought 6.9 was the average rating here. This isn't even close to just average.) Compared to the body of Sidney Lumet's work, this has got to rank right up near the top, doesn't it?

2001: A Space Odyssey (1968)

Greatest film ever made?

[10/10 · 24 May 2002]

Another reviewer below ( http://imdb.com/CommentsShow?62622-541 ) asked this very question as well. I've written an earlier review ( http://imdb.com/CommentsShow?62622-432 ) hailing it as a Masterpiece, though now I'm considering whether it's even greater than that. I look at the "top 100 lists" here and elsewhere, and when you consider such films as _The Godfather_, _Citizen Kane_, _Schindler's List_ and a very, very short list of others (after you get past about 6 or 7 films, the next on the list after those just don't stack up to _2001_), _2001_ may or may not stand right alongside them or surpass them as far as cinematic perfection goes, but it is, at the very least, in extremely close proximity.

As for all the negative reviews of the film, I think a chief problem many have with this film is that it doesn't present itself as a "normal" film; if what you want is a film that plays like other great ones, you're going to be sorely disappointed. As anyone who watched it (love it or hate it) knows, it doesn't rely on explicit narrative nearly as much as in just about any other great film you care to name. But it sets a standard for monumental filmmaking. For many of us lovers of cinema, Stanley Kubrick's epic is a blessing: it showed to the world and to the filmmaking industry that "weird," "avant-garde" filmmaking can be great. Yeah, it took a guy with a big name and a big-studio super-budget to make it happen on American screens, but it helped to breathe new life into the cinema and taught the studios not to stifle greatness just because it may be "boring" or "weird."

Again, we lovers of film all owe Stanley a huge debt.

Star Wars: Episode II - Attack of the Clones (2002)

BEST EVER! MASTERPIECE! 11/10!

[1/10 · 23 May 2002]

George Lucas is a movie-making LEDGEND! First the great trilogy, then the fantastic episode 1, and now THIS! WOOO! This utterly blew me away, from the Fox intro all the way until the very end of the credits! All the special FX were TOTALLY lifelike! A roller-coaster ride every single second. So awesome it put me in a daze from which I coudln't awake for daze to come (ha ha ha!) Acting - Great! A+ Dialogue - Great! A+ Plot - Great! A+ Characters - Great! A+ Directing - Great! A++++ Flawless movie throughout, perhaps the greatest EVER made!!!!! I ESPECIALLY loved the love scenes, it was a beatiful screen romance the likes of which Ive NEVER seen! It was a great romantic comedy that made people around me laugh! 3PCO was also HILARIOUS, whoever acted his part did a great job! Everyone game MEZMERIZING performances! I was litterally drooling all over my popcorn! George Lucas ROOOOLZ!!!! 11 out of 10 --- no, no, *20* out of 10! I'm going to go AT LEAST 50 more times. I wish Episode 3 came out yesterday, I can't wait! Peace out, y'all.

Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer (1986)

I'm appalled...

[2/10 · 21 May 2002]

I'm appalled, not so much because of the movie (hey, folks, there's only one word for this movie, and it appears next to the numeral 1 on your rating scorepads). The movie itself doesn't pretend to be anything more than the ridiculous, idiotic, irredeemable crap that it is.

No, what's most appalling here is the average rating it's gotten from users on this site. NEVER, EVER have I encountered something SO bad and get THIS high a rating. Not even close. You people should be ashamed of yourselves.

Actually, I was wavering between giving this a 1 or a 2, for what pitiful effort there was by the filmmakers to make this tedious, slobbering junk a little entertaining to watch, but I told myself, 10 minutes remaining, to hell with it, if Henry doesn't get killed as he deserves to, and make this world a better place for everyone (himself included), this is getting a 1/10 for sure. And sure enough . . .

I've rated over 300 movies on this site by this point. This is among the select three films out of 300+ to get numeral uno.

Once Upon a Time in America (1984)

Masterpiece?

[9/10 · 8 May 2002]

That's the word that keeps popping up in the users' reviews of this film, and not without reason. I don't know if I'm prepared to draw that judgment myself (I'd really have to see it again), but I'm among those who, at the least, take seriously such claims. I think there are few films in American cinema history that clearly meet this level of quality: the _Godfather_ saga, _Schindler's List_, _Apocalypse Now_, a great number of Kubrick films, some of Hitchcock's films, some Welles films, David Lean's epics, and maybe some others that don't come to mind right off. In the "maybe" class I'd put this one, perhaps Leone's other epics (though, again, I'd have to see *those* again), _Chinatown_, and perhaps several others. In any event, the list of such films (masterpiece-level or very near it) is not very long, and this one belongs on it.

In the pantheon of great gangster films, this has to be right up near the top, below the _Godfather_ films and above _Goodfellas_ (and _On the Waterfront_, should one so classify it). In the relatively barren landscape of 1980s American film, this one towers above just about all of them. It's a truly special film and, aside from its decent placement in the top 250 on this website, has been unjustly neglected/overlooked for the past couple decades, as evidenced by the fact that it's yet to be released on DVD (the arrival of which I'm among those ever-so-patiently awaiting).

This one is among the two dozen or so films that I'd rate a 9/10 or higher.

The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (2001)

I'm of the "excellent but overrated" opinion

[6/10 · 5 May 2002]

I do grow weary of the googly-eyed folks on IMDb, in the way they respond to the "dazzling" new/recent releases. I imagine that these are predominantly the same folks that in the last couple years vaulted _American Beauty_ to #6, _The Matrix_ and _The Sixth Sense_ into the top 30, and _Being John Malkovich_ and _Magnolia_ into or near the top 50. I do often find myself going against popular opinion on all sorts of subjects and it is tiresome to do so, but obviously what is popular isn't necessarily what's great. This is often compared to _Star Wars_ but at least _Star Wars_ is in the top 10 on this site rather than top 3. (And I don't consider _Star Wars_ top-10 material, either....)

Let's not get ahead of ourselves. Yes, there is technical wizardry here, there are gorgeous vistas, a tale of epic scale containing a classic story of good vs. evil with the fate of everything at stake. All in all, I can grant that it's probably quite the achievement to be able to put the story contained in the book up there on the screen. I imagine that many of the folks rushing in to rate this so highly hold the STORY near and dear to their hearts. That's understandable, but this is a *movie* site, so I judge the film by how it succeeds at being great cinema. And by that standard, I'll just say that I found this well worth my time to see it the first time, but not worth my time to see it twice. (Yes, I saw it twice before reaching that conclusion.) I can say that I'm glad they hired a director like Peter Jackson to direct the project, and even then there was a pervasive "Hollywood" feel throughout. I came out of the theater feeling unfulfilled (moreso the second time than the first), mainly because it's so heavy on the presentation but only "pretty entertaining" in terms of storyline. Maybe there is too much in fantasy-stories that makes them exceedingly difficult to succeed as great cinema, at least by my standards. To each his own, I guess.

I don't care to "knock" the film beyond this. It's excellent. Go see it at least once. Aside from the incessant ear-piercing shrieks of the Cloaked Horsemen of the Apocalypse, you'll have a fun time. But I figured it bears mentioning that it doesn't merit the ranking it's attained on this site, and I don't feel at all that it was robbed at the Oscars given the other nominees for Best Picture. (_Mulholland Drive_ was the best achievement in cinema in 2001, anyway. Hey, what's right ain't always what's popular -- almost certainly so in this case.)

Being John Malkovich (1999)

Cute, zany, absurd, and fun . . . but deep? Uh, no.

[6/10 · 1 May 2002]

I had seen this one about a couple years back. My recollection of it was that it was a fun, witty, pretty original comedy, but not especially deep, moving, or inventive. I do have to think that if this is what passes for deep and challenging (or even "BRILLIANT!"), audiences may really be that dumbed down. If you're interested in the philosophical questions this raised (and I say this as a student of philosophy), then go delve into the relevant philosophical texts and you'll find out how superficial a treatment of the subject this is.

The most poignant philosophical question involved is whether one person could *be* another. Does John Malkovich really exist any more as the person he was once a Craig Schwartz takes over? The answer is: Craig Schwartz was being Craig Schwartz, using (what was previously) John Malkovich's body. John M.'s identity is effectively annihilated. And then . . . what? It does raise some serious questions, but the movie didn't point toward any answer because it would have ruined the comic effect of it all. It's not intended to make sense, obviously, but the effect of this, in this movie anyway, isn't intellectual but comic -- that is, because it doesn't really bring any intellectual tools to answer or even really address any of these hard questions. See it as a zany, absurd, light-weird comedy, not as some intellectually engaging masterpiece. It just doesn't deserve to be taken that seriously, and the film's authors seem to agree.

That was my original opinion of the movie, and my second viewing of it in the last couple days left my opinion virtually unchanged.

This site's database tells me that I had registered a vote of 6/10 for this movie. (For me, I try grading on a real curve, so a 6/10 is above-average.) My second viewing of it led me to think either a 6 or a 7 out of 10, and seeing as my previous rating is a 6, my heart isn't in raising it to a 7. 6.5 out of 10 if half-points apply.

One of the more overrated movies on the site, but it seems to have been slowly sliding downward, and rightfully so -- like a number of other overrated flicks from 1999, I might add. (_Matrix_, _Sixth Sense_, _Magnolia_ also come to mind.) This is not lasting cinema.

Panic Room (2002)

I want those 2 hours of my life back

[3/10 · 28 April 2002]

My gosh. This is not the David Fincher I had come to know and love. What was he thinking? Whatever went wrong? This had the right personnel: promising director, Jodie Foster, a potentially gripping thriller, and it falls flat, with a thud that is as unconvincing as the movie itself. Certainly a step back for David Fincher as creative figure.

I assume you all know the general plot outline by now. Nice idea, but just downright dismal execution. Ridiculous, illogical plot "twists," unbelievable character behaviors, unbelievable dialogue, a storyline as unfocused and meandering as the characters running to and fro about the house, and a predictable, dud ending (with your "villain that just won't die" thingy). Just about every bad Hollywood filmmaking cliche is employed, to make what is, so far, the most overrated movie of the year. I've seen it in countless mediocre, formulaic, manufactured movies before, and this offers nothing new. After about half-way through, the movie lost whatever grip it had on me.

"She's destroying all the surveillance cameras in the house. Gee, why didn't we think of that?"

*roll eyes*

3 points out of 10

Donnie Darko (2001)

Flawed, yes, but a must-see

[7/10 · 28 April 2002]

Yeah, the really picky folks can hunt and peck at the flaws all they want to rationalize why they don't think this is so great, and, yeah, the flaws are there. Some scenes arguably don't belong, the "science" involved is certainly questionable, and so on. But c'mon, picky people, it would be wonderful if all films were this good. Some films can be and are great even if flawed. And this one I found engrossing, dark, sad, and beautiful. And extraordinary. You can argue whether or not some of the techniques employed haven't already been done before (the techniques for which David Lynch has become [in]famous come to mind, but they only come to mind; it's hard to pin down how exactly they're highly similar), but this film is still very unique and original. Get past the nitpicking over details and judge the story as a whole; that's what made this special for me. (E.g., something about the word "sacrifice" used in ads for the film, as it relates to the story.) It's rare that I see a film that makes so strong an impression on me, but I will indeed let some time pass and give it a second viewing to see how well it holds up.

In the meantime, I'll give it a 9 out of 10 (and I don't give out 9's very easily).

Moulin Rouge! (2001)

Stunning visuals, Disney story

[7/10 · 28 April 2002]

The raves about this film all include reference to the fact that this film is a feast for the senses. And, visually, it is mighty impressive. Lavish set design and art direction (an Oscar must-win in this category) are the primary virtues of this film, and mark out its uniqueness. Other than that, though, you get a storyline that's not nearly as easy to appreciate, one that's been done time and time aplenty in a Disney movie (well, except for the ending). On the whole you get an above-average movie, worth viewing at least once (several times if you like the striking visuals), but I think one could come up with several other movies meriting consideration for best-film nominations before this one.

But as to the visuals, it does raise the question: is this the most visually impressive movie ever? It's certainly among the most *impressive* ever, though I wouldn't categorize it as one of the most visually *beautiful* films ever. For that, I would nominate _Barry Lyndon_. It's a feast for the eyes, but like everything else Kubrick, it doesn't bombard you, as _Moulin Rouge!_ does. And the first 15 minutes or so of _Moulin Rouge!_ are just plain dizzying; there's no time to really take in anything in particular. This director hasn't had the best of track records with me; I literally gave up on _Strictly Ballroom_ about 30 minutes into it.

Mainstream storyline + extraordinarily lush framing = 7 out of 10.