In my opinion, this is almost a perfectly crafted movie from beginning to end. It has everything a good Hitchcock thriller should have- suspense, romance, humor, and intrigue- all in perfect balance. Jimmy Stewart and Grace Kelly are wonderful together. Despite the age difference between the actors, they have detectable chemistry and seem to enhance each other's performance. Solid writing, solid directing, solid acting- truly one of the best films out there. Remarkable considering it's almost entirely set in one room. It's the perfect example of how Hitchock can build suspense around the things you don't see. I've seen this film about 25 times, and I never get tired of it.
Reviews
24 Reviews
Pride and Prejudice
(1995)
Utterly enjoyable! Brilliant, brilliant, brilliant!
19 June 2008
I'd put off watching this version because the length (5+ hours) seemed so daunting. Honestly, however, after 10 minutes I was HOOKED. I'm convinced that this film is as true to Jane Austen's book as it could be, and is equally brilliant. The casting is flawless. Colin Firth is genius as the dour, insufferable, smolderingly sexy Mr. Darcy. Crispin Bonham-Carter is equally endearing as Mr. Bingley. And Jennifer Ehle and Susannah Harker bring Elizabeth and Jane Bennett to life. The film's commentary on 19th century society is humorous and illuminating. And I daresay you'll walk around using words like "daresay" for days after seeing it. If you haven't seen this yet, by all means, set aside a weekend afternoon, call a couple good friends, and sit back and enjoy the indulgence. This is one film I can see myself watching again and again in the years to come.
The Passion of the Christ
(2004)
"Even if you're a minority of one, the truth is the truth." - MK Gandhi
19 June 2008
I just returned from seeing "The Passion". This is the first time I can recall having such a compelling need to write something down, but without knowing where to begin or even exactly what I want to say. As you've probably read, the film has already inspired unprecedented controversy for two reasons. First, the utter brutality and violence of the persecution and crucifixion of Christ. And second, the alleged anti-Semitic perspective.
On the first critique, I can't recall seeing a film that more graphically and viscerally portrays human physical suffering. It is incredibly difficult to watch, yet I could not take my eyes off the screen. I believe this is a credit to the actors, who manage to convey a level of spiritual suffering that transcends the physical infliction of pain. It is not only Christ's sacrifice, but that of Mary and the disciples, and by extension, everyone who came to know this individual and his message. It is the most human and touching of moments when Mary asks her son to let her die with him. And that simple message of pure love and profound loss is conveyed beautifully. It may have been possible to tell the story without the graphic violence, but it would not have been as profound. The story is not just about the persecution of Christ, but about the power of all-encompassing love, forgiveness, and spiritual strength. The message works precisely because Christ's physical suffering is something we can all identify with. It makes him more human, and thus makes his faith more remarkable.
The second critique is hardly worth addressing. This is not to disparage my Jewish friends, but this film, like (my reading of) the gospels, is not about the special cruelty of one group or another. It is about human nature, and more specifically, human frailty, weakness, fear, and ambition. It is a comment on politics- the struggle to gain and keep power. To be fair to the film (and I don't think this gives too much away), while it is the Jewish priests who demand the crucifixion of Christ, it is the Roman guards who carry out their orders with a mixture of brutality and glee that would make any feeling person's skin crawl. Even Caiphus is shown repenting, albeit too late, for his blind ambition. If viewers, Jewish or gentile, saw the message as anti-Semitic, I believe that they have utterly missed the point. Jesus, like others who went both before and after him, had a message that challenged the prevailing wisdom, and thus, the legitimacy of the powers that be. To question the conventional wisdom, religious or ideological; to threaten the perception of what is widely believed or portrayed to be reality (and to do so in the quest for a larger truth)- well, it is the single most courageous act a person can commit. And often those who have done so- Socrates, Galileo, Gandhi, Sakharov- are condemned as crazy or criminal, as was Christ. But without the courage and faith of these individuals, humanity would not evolve.
Which brings me to the main message of the film. As a friend so perfectly put it as we were parting ways in the parking lot, for all the criticism and analysis of Gibson's interpretation, the simple fact remains: we have not come very far. That is the real sorrow. I had read that audiences who saw early screenings had an unusual reaction at the conclusion, and my experience was no different. As the credits began to roll, the theater was silent. For nearly 10 minutes, no one moved or said a word. I imagine that it was a collective gathering-of-thoughts, a reverence and remembrance. Yet I can't help but think that once everyone finds themselves back in the safety and security of their own homes, the introspection will fade to a kind of distant nostalgia. Meanwhile, brutal wars and crimes against humanity rage on around the globe in the name of religion and righteousness and our own "democratic" leader calls for limits on equality and disguises it as piety. Human hypocrisy, ambition, and greed in the time of Christ is no rival for that which we are witness to today. In that sense, this film could not have been more timely. I hope we listen.
On the first critique, I can't recall seeing a film that more graphically and viscerally portrays human physical suffering. It is incredibly difficult to watch, yet I could not take my eyes off the screen. I believe this is a credit to the actors, who manage to convey a level of spiritual suffering that transcends the physical infliction of pain. It is not only Christ's sacrifice, but that of Mary and the disciples, and by extension, everyone who came to know this individual and his message. It is the most human and touching of moments when Mary asks her son to let her die with him. And that simple message of pure love and profound loss is conveyed beautifully. It may have been possible to tell the story without the graphic violence, but it would not have been as profound. The story is not just about the persecution of Christ, but about the power of all-encompassing love, forgiveness, and spiritual strength. The message works precisely because Christ's physical suffering is something we can all identify with. It makes him more human, and thus makes his faith more remarkable.
The second critique is hardly worth addressing. This is not to disparage my Jewish friends, but this film, like (my reading of) the gospels, is not about the special cruelty of one group or another. It is about human nature, and more specifically, human frailty, weakness, fear, and ambition. It is a comment on politics- the struggle to gain and keep power. To be fair to the film (and I don't think this gives too much away), while it is the Jewish priests who demand the crucifixion of Christ, it is the Roman guards who carry out their orders with a mixture of brutality and glee that would make any feeling person's skin crawl. Even Caiphus is shown repenting, albeit too late, for his blind ambition. If viewers, Jewish or gentile, saw the message as anti-Semitic, I believe that they have utterly missed the point. Jesus, like others who went both before and after him, had a message that challenged the prevailing wisdom, and thus, the legitimacy of the powers that be. To question the conventional wisdom, religious or ideological; to threaten the perception of what is widely believed or portrayed to be reality (and to do so in the quest for a larger truth)- well, it is the single most courageous act a person can commit. And often those who have done so- Socrates, Galileo, Gandhi, Sakharov- are condemned as crazy or criminal, as was Christ. But without the courage and faith of these individuals, humanity would not evolve.
Which brings me to the main message of the film. As a friend so perfectly put it as we were parting ways in the parking lot, for all the criticism and analysis of Gibson's interpretation, the simple fact remains: we have not come very far. That is the real sorrow. I had read that audiences who saw early screenings had an unusual reaction at the conclusion, and my experience was no different. As the credits began to roll, the theater was silent. For nearly 10 minutes, no one moved or said a word. I imagine that it was a collective gathering-of-thoughts, a reverence and remembrance. Yet I can't help but think that once everyone finds themselves back in the safety and security of their own homes, the introspection will fade to a kind of distant nostalgia. Meanwhile, brutal wars and crimes against humanity rage on around the globe in the name of religion and righteousness and our own "democratic" leader calls for limits on equality and disguises it as piety. Human hypocrisy, ambition, and greed in the time of Christ is no rival for that which we are witness to today. In that sense, this film could not have been more timely. I hope we listen.
The Others
(2001)
Exceeded expectations.
19 June 2008
First off, let me say that this film is not at all reminiscent of Hitchcock, contrary to the opinion of several previous reviewers. While Hitch did do psychodramas, this is really more of a ghost story. Like other reviewers have said, the movie is very stylized and suspenseful, and above all, entertaining. I don't disagree that it is slow, but in this film, that is a virtue. It allows the viewer to get a real feel for the individual characters and the family/household dynamic- all of which are critical to the climax. It is difficult to give a thorough critique without giving too much away, but I must say that I did NOT see "it" coming- and I always appreciate it when a film can turn my perspective upside down. This is mostly a visual movie and I have a feeling it won't come across as brilliantly on a small screen, so if you're reading this and considering seeing the film, I strongly recommend seeing it in the theater. The use of light and space and camera angles is excellent, and I also appreciated the minimal use of background music- sometimes in a thriller/horror film, the score can become distracting or overpower the dialogue- NOT a problem here. I wouldn't be surprised if this film is nominated for several of the more obscure Oscar categories (the ones I normally wouldn't even notice) like Sound Editing and Cinematography. There are a few minor inconsistencies and anacronisms, but as a whole package, this film delivers. I've seen a lot of comparisons to "The Sixth Sense", but please don't let those shape your expectations of this movie. This is a very different, and in many ways, superior movie, because it relies even less on gore and shock and more on suspense and psychological drama.
North by Northwest
(1959)
Why don't they make films like this anymore?
19 June 2008
As an admitted Hitchcock addict, this was one of the few films of his that I had somehow managed to miss up until recently. Needless to say, expectations were high. How could this film possibly compare to "The Birds", "Marnie", "Notorious", or "Rear Window"?? I am happy to say that my expectations were not only met, they were surpassed. This is another GREAT Hitchcock film. Cary Grant's talent is especially showcased here. His dry wit and delivery of his (well-written) lines made me literally laugh out loud in places. I am becoming convinced that Hitchcock is the modern equivalent of Shakespeare- that his work is perpetually as timely and appealing as it was at the time it was produced. This film balances all the qualities of a good Hitchcock thriller- suspense, intrigue, romance, and humor. A movie lover's dream.
Network
(1976)
This film is so before it's time, it's clairvoyant.
19 June 2008
Brilliant. This film touches on all of the major controversies about media's role in a free society- the blurred lines between entertainment and news, the concentration of media and corporate ownership, the irreconcilable relationship between capitalism's demand for profit and democracy's need for free exchange of information...I showed it to my university "Politics and Media" course and they were stunned to find out that it was produced 25 years ago. The writing is obviously excellent, but the performances by the cast- Finch, Dunaway (for once, seeming to feel comfortable in a role), Holden, Duvall- are also top notch. The whole movie comes together perfectly. It's irreverent and ironic and sardonic in it's wit. Just so many layers of shrewd and valid critique. The last 10 minutes are classic- one of the best endings to a film I've seen in some time. I was, to say the least, very impressed.
Requiem for a Dream
(2000)
One of a kind.
19 June 2008
So many drug-related films (Traffic, Blow) have come out in the past year that I've started to get them confused. But this one tops them all. Ellen Burstyn's performance is absolutely mind-boggling. The scene where she dances around in the clown makeup and the red dress is chilling. I can't imagine the depths of her soul that she had to reach to get this performance, and it is an absolute travesty that she didn't win the Best Actress for it. Jennifer Connolley does a great job as well- this woman is seriously underrated. The scene where she tears apart the apartment looking for a fix conveys desperation like you rarely see on screen. I love how Aronofsky makes you get close to the characters, but not *too* close...and how his directing and editing mimics the descent into hell. This is a depressing film- the characters are sad, desperate, and pathetic, yet we still have empathy for them, no matter how despicable or disgraceful their behavior becomes. A truly unique film experience.
The Ring
(2002)
You've got to be kidding me.
19 June 2008
Warning: Spoilers
While this was definitely not the worst horror film (or "psychological thriller", as some have erroneously dubbed it) I've ever seen, it most certainly is not worthy of "scariest film ever" status. It's creepy and strange, but also totally hokey and full of plot holes. This is basically a teenage-level horror film that's pretending to be much more. It's an insult to the viewer's intelligence, as well as actual psychological thrillers like pretty much any Hitchcock, or more recently "The Sixth Sense" and "The Others." My specific critiques are given below.
*SPOILERS AHEAD* Firstly, the whole phone call thing. Lame. That was so unnecessary and was just plain silly. HOKEY. How many other scary movies did that plot point steal from? Creative.
Second, the girl crawling out of the television. I seriously laughed out loud. That was supposed to be the scariest thing we've seen in a movie since "The Shining"? Please. It would have been much scarier if the people watching the video had gotten sucked into it.
Third, the marbles forming in the shape of the arrow. Also laughed out loud there.
Finally, and I think this was the main weakness of the movie. WHAT was Samara's motivation??? Up until the "twist", it at least seemed plausible that she was trying to be freed from her "dark place." But when it's revealed that she'd been hurting people *before* that and her fall into the well was the result, not the cause, of her misdeeds, everything just unravels. The whole POINT of the psychological thriller is to reveal *why* the person is doing what they're doing. They hinted that the circumstances around her birth were suspicious-- why couldn't they carry that out a bit-- was she the spawn of Satan? A demon? Was she conceived by some voodoo curse? For cryin' out loud, give us something to work with. The whole "Evil for evil's sake" is a cop out and totally uninteresting.
I'd give it a 5 out of 10.
*SPOILERS AHEAD* Firstly, the whole phone call thing. Lame. That was so unnecessary and was just plain silly. HOKEY. How many other scary movies did that plot point steal from? Creative.
Second, the girl crawling out of the television. I seriously laughed out loud. That was supposed to be the scariest thing we've seen in a movie since "The Shining"? Please. It would have been much scarier if the people watching the video had gotten sucked into it.
Third, the marbles forming in the shape of the arrow. Also laughed out loud there.
Finally, and I think this was the main weakness of the movie. WHAT was Samara's motivation??? Up until the "twist", it at least seemed plausible that she was trying to be freed from her "dark place." But when it's revealed that she'd been hurting people *before* that and her fall into the well was the result, not the cause, of her misdeeds, everything just unravels. The whole POINT of the psychological thriller is to reveal *why* the person is doing what they're doing. They hinted that the circumstances around her birth were suspicious-- why couldn't they carry that out a bit-- was she the spawn of Satan? A demon? Was she conceived by some voodoo curse? For cryin' out loud, give us something to work with. The whole "Evil for evil's sake" is a cop out and totally uninteresting.
I'd give it a 5 out of 10.
You Can Count on Me
(2000)
Laura Linney is totally watchable as always.
19 June 2008
I was very pleasantly surprised by this film. I went in with no expectations, and I found the writing and the acting (especially by the brilliant Laura Linney and Mark Ruffalo) to be exquisite. The feel and tempo of the film was very real, as were the language, behavior, and emotional responses of the characters to their situations. The only real disappointment (and I hate to say this because I really like the guy) was the performance by Matthew Broderick. I found it to be flat and stilted. In fact, I credit Laura Linney all the more for carrying their shared scenes. It's nice to experience the range of human emotion in a film without being hit over the head. The film doesn't overdramatize the issues, nor does it engage in unnecessary psychoanalysis. It just IS. (Sort of reminded me of a toned down version of "The Sweet Hereafter.")
The good news and the bad news.
19 June 2008
Here's the good news: this film has finally brought much-deserved attention to Chinese film-making, and for that I am very grateful. The bad news is that it's a shame that it took Chow Yun Fat and the martial arts angle to make Chinese movies accessible to mainstream audiences. While this is definitely a quality film (it has especially beautiful direction and photography), it is still sub-standard when compared to some other Chinese films of recent years. If this was your first Chinese film and you enjoyed other features besides the martial arts/fantasy (e.g. the lovely storytelling, the expressive faces, passionate emotions, and gorgeous backdrops), then put these other Chinese movies on your list of must-sees: ""Xiu Xiu", "Raise the Red Lantern", "To Live", "The Story of Qui Ju", "Not One Less", "Temptress Moon", "Red Firecracker, Green Firecracker", and "Farewell My Concubine." If you liked Michelle Yeoh, you will love Gong Li. The bottom line is that Chinese films are in a league of their own. Compared to most of the Hollywood big studio stuff out there, this film shines. Compared to the films I've listed above, it's just pretty good.
Traffic
(2000)
It doesn't get much grittier than this.
19 June 2008
The 2 1/2 hours of this film flew by. I was riveted from the first scene to the last. The tempo is set in the first moments and does not let up. Despite the fact that it follows three different story lines, it never feels disjointed. Bravo to Soderberg for creating this substantive and important movie. Afterwards I felt like I had just finished reading a great work of literature. It almost leaves you feeling drained. The performances are excellent. Benecio Del Toro bring a gentle, quiet intensity to this role that is moving even when he is saying nothing. This man is perhaps the best actor of his generation. Michael Douglas, Catherine Zeta-Jones, Benjamin Bratt and Salma Hayek were also impressive in their parts (though the latter two have just a few minutes of screen time). It has my vote for "Best Picture", though due to its disturbing subject matter, it may not fare well against the epic "Gladiator." If nothing else, Soderberg deserves the Oscar for directing. This one will be hard to top. Definitely worth the $9.
Tombstone
(1993)
Cowboys are my weakness!
19 June 2008
Warning: Spoilers
It's funny, but I notice most of the prior comments are from guys, but speaking as a woman, this is by no means just a guy's flick. It's been one of my favorite films since the day it came out. It's got everything- drama, romance, action, and an honest to goodness story. There are even interesting themes, like the moral dilemma that Wyatt finds himself in-- Is he compelled to help fight the Cowboys even though he's "retired" and just wants to live out his life in peace? Is there a moral equivalence between killing for justice and killing for retribution? How far can a man go to sacrifice his own integrity and better judgment? Even though the Earps are the "good guys", the movie doesn't glamorize violence. Doc Holliday and some of the Earps' other sidekicks ("Creek Johnson" and "Texas Jack") are obviously pretty shady characters, but at the end of the day, are forced to choose between right and wrong, and they choose correctly. It doesn't get much better than Val Kilmer's performance as Doc Holliday, and I can't for the life of me understand why he didn't get nominated for it. I also appreciate the fact that the love story between Wyatt and Josephine didn't dominate the film and take away from the real plot, ala "Titanic". The love story simply served its purpose in helping viewers to better understand the character of Wyatt. Also the friendship between Wyatt and Doc was portrayed tenderly but not wussily. And okay, as a woman, let me just say that there is no one sexier than Sam Elliot. Man alive, if there ever was a person born to portray a cowboy, that guy is IT. If you've never seen a Western, or are not a fan, try this movie. It will make a believer out of you.
Thirteen Days
(2000)
Almost the end of civilization as we know it.
19 June 2008
I watched this movie today with a number of students from my International Politics class, and from the standpoint of a politics professor, this film was absolutely extraordinary. This is a movie about the development of foreign policy in a crisis; it spells out with brilliant detail the decision-making process of JFK's inner circle, the tension between the Executive Office of the President and the Departments of State and Defense, and the attempts by the Military Industrial Complex (namely the Joint Chiefs) to undermine the diplomatic approaches favored by the president. It highlights the conflict between military standard operating procedures ("rules of engagement") and the better judgment/common sense of right-thinking human beings. It hints at conspiracies to (later) depose and otherwise get rid of both Kennedy and Khruschev from within for what turned out to be a very unpopular resolution with the hardliners on both sides. I especially like that the movie acknowledged the humanity of the individual decision-makers without getting too Capra-esquire or preachy.
I can see why this film hasn't been a great commercial success. It is not your standard big studio fare. It's quite cerebral, and although it has some exciting pre-conflict scenes, it's not a "war film". (It reminds me a bit of "Three Kings" in that regard- both films were, in my opinion, mis-marketed. They both seemed to target the younger male action crowd, when both movies are really made for a more intellectual audience.) I liked how the Soviets were not cartoonishly vilified, as is common in a lot of Cold War era films. They were shown to be somewhat calculating and strategic, but not irrational or more importantly, inhuman. In fact, one of the most fascinating parts of the film is the revelation that both sides lack information as to the other side's true intentions. It was this uncertainty that back in October 1962, could have led to the end of civilization as we know it.
The acting was solid (Steven Culp was very, very good as Robert Kennedy- so good, in fact, that I'm afraid he'll have a hard time getting cast in the future. There was audible gasp in the audience when he came on the screen and WAS Bobby). Coaster's accent was actually annoying (as an earlier reviewer noted), but it's forgivable in light of the moving, somewhat understated performance he turns in. It is the directing that takes the cake, however. From the moment the chain of events was set in motion, the tension does NOT let up. It actually feels like you are back in 1962 living through the events of those two weeks- honestly, there was nary a moment to relax until the resolution was wrought. I recommend this film especially strongly to high school and college age students who are too young to have any Cold War memory, as well as to those who lived through the era and may have forgotten what it felt like to come this close.
I can see why this film hasn't been a great commercial success. It is not your standard big studio fare. It's quite cerebral, and although it has some exciting pre-conflict scenes, it's not a "war film". (It reminds me a bit of "Three Kings" in that regard- both films were, in my opinion, mis-marketed. They both seemed to target the younger male action crowd, when both movies are really made for a more intellectual audience.) I liked how the Soviets were not cartoonishly vilified, as is common in a lot of Cold War era films. They were shown to be somewhat calculating and strategic, but not irrational or more importantly, inhuman. In fact, one of the most fascinating parts of the film is the revelation that both sides lack information as to the other side's true intentions. It was this uncertainty that back in October 1962, could have led to the end of civilization as we know it.
The acting was solid (Steven Culp was very, very good as Robert Kennedy- so good, in fact, that I'm afraid he'll have a hard time getting cast in the future. There was audible gasp in the audience when he came on the screen and WAS Bobby). Coaster's accent was actually annoying (as an earlier reviewer noted), but it's forgivable in light of the moving, somewhat understated performance he turns in. It is the directing that takes the cake, however. From the moment the chain of events was set in motion, the tension does NOT let up. It actually feels like you are back in 1962 living through the events of those two weeks- honestly, there was nary a moment to relax until the resolution was wrought. I recommend this film especially strongly to high school and college age students who are too young to have any Cold War memory, as well as to those who lived through the era and may have forgotten what it felt like to come this close.
The Secret Lives of Dentists
(2002)
Go with no expectations.
19 June 2008
First of all, the front page review for this movie makes me wonder if the person actually watched the film. Or perhaps s/he got up to get some popcorn during an especially critical scene, but we definitely do find out whether or not David (Campbell Scott) is correct is in belief that Dana (Hope Davis) is having an affair.
Secondly, this was a good, honest character driven movie. I was shocked at the low overall score, and I wonder whether most moviegoers these days lack the patience or attention span required to sit through a film whose sole purpose is to take the audience on a tour through the characters' relationships and private hopes, fears, and desires. There is virtually no action (in the typical Hollywood sense), no flash, and no monumental act of god or nature that is meant to shock. Instead, this is a film that all of us should be able to relate to on the most simple, human levels. It examines those day to day pieces of life that we take for granted, but which quietly take their toll. Perhaps the most profound line in the film is when Davis' character tells her husband that she expected their marriage to "get wider...but instead it just got smaller." The film reminded me a lot of another character-driven film about misunderstandings, dysfunctional relationships, and the inability to communicate: "You Can Count on Me." Both films are deeply intelligent, and both require their audiences to be as open and honest in what they allow themselves to get from the film as the movie is in giving it. In a nutshell, you will get out of this film what you are willing to put in. That being said, it's not for everyone. If you like fast action, melodrama, and lots of flash and glitter, this film is not for you. In you like a contemplative, honest piece of art, check it out.
Secondly, this was a good, honest character driven movie. I was shocked at the low overall score, and I wonder whether most moviegoers these days lack the patience or attention span required to sit through a film whose sole purpose is to take the audience on a tour through the characters' relationships and private hopes, fears, and desires. There is virtually no action (in the typical Hollywood sense), no flash, and no monumental act of god or nature that is meant to shock. Instead, this is a film that all of us should be able to relate to on the most simple, human levels. It examines those day to day pieces of life that we take for granted, but which quietly take their toll. Perhaps the most profound line in the film is when Davis' character tells her husband that she expected their marriage to "get wider...but instead it just got smaller." The film reminded me a lot of another character-driven film about misunderstandings, dysfunctional relationships, and the inability to communicate: "You Can Count on Me." Both films are deeply intelligent, and both require their audiences to be as open and honest in what they allow themselves to get from the film as the movie is in giving it. In a nutshell, you will get out of this film what you are willing to put in. That being said, it's not for everyone. If you like fast action, melodrama, and lots of flash and glitter, this film is not for you. In you like a contemplative, honest piece of art, check it out.
Rope
(1948)
Modern day version of "Crime and Punishment."
19 June 2008
I do agree with the critic who stated that Jimmy Stewart's performance saves this film. From the moment he enters the scene (about 20 minutes in), the movie takes on a whole new energy. It's remarkable; it's as if his presence focuses the plot and stabilizes the chaos that characterized the movie up until that point. The story itself is a retelling of Dostoyevsky's "Crime and Punishment" (and is also apparently based on an actual murder case.) It asks the question of whether there are some people who are so intellectually/morally superior as to be exempt from the laws that govern the rest of us. The 2 antagonists of course believe there are, and to prove it (and for their own amusement) they kill a classmate whom they consider to be a "waste of space." Then they invite mutual friends and family of the victim over for a dinner party, where they serve the buffet off of a trunk stuffed with his body. The brilliant irony is that they are too arrogant to realize that they have completely misinterpreted the theories of the one man they believe will understand them- their former teacher, played by Jimmy Stewart. This is quite a cerebral film, and won't hold the attention of people who watch Hitchcock for the action and suspense. I think this is one of Stewart's best performances- the evolution as his character slowly figure out what has occurred is pure artistry.
Instant classic.
19 June 2008
Well...I'm a bit overwhelmed, to be honest. It was a lot to take in. I'm a pretty sensitive gal...all the violence and demon-looking Orcs and general evil-tension made me a little stressed out.
But on the whole, it was a beautifully made film.
The cinematography and CGI were stunning.
They left some things out of the book that I would have liked to see, but when you think about the task facing Jackson et al, they have done a remarkable thing. Despite the $300 million budget and the occasional movie "star", this really did not seem like your typical Hollywood fare. It really was an epic in every sense of the word, and with no disrespect meant to JK Rowling and Chris Columbus, this was 10 times the movie Harry Potter was. In fact, it seems almost laughable to compare them. The themes of both stories--- good vs. evil, hope vs. despair, loyalty vs. betrayal, compassion vs. greed, courage vs. fear, honor vs. deceit-- are basically the same, however LOTR delves much deeper into the core of the human soul. Which makes it both more frightening and more rewarding.
A few times I was surprised to find myself crying...in every case simply because I was moved by the expression on someone's face, or a plaintive wail of sorrow from one character on behalf of another. I suppose to me, the sweetest thing about the story (and especially the way it was portrayed on film) was how it emphasized the connection between beings...the Fellowship of the Ring is made up of four hobbits, an elf, a dwarf, two men, and a wizard. That has to mean something-- that they stand no chance against Sauron unless they stay united. Silly me, but it was touching.
But on the whole, it was a beautifully made film.
The cinematography and CGI were stunning.
They left some things out of the book that I would have liked to see, but when you think about the task facing Jackson et al, they have done a remarkable thing. Despite the $300 million budget and the occasional movie "star", this really did not seem like your typical Hollywood fare. It really was an epic in every sense of the word, and with no disrespect meant to JK Rowling and Chris Columbus, this was 10 times the movie Harry Potter was. In fact, it seems almost laughable to compare them. The themes of both stories--- good vs. evil, hope vs. despair, loyalty vs. betrayal, compassion vs. greed, courage vs. fear, honor vs. deceit-- are basically the same, however LOTR delves much deeper into the core of the human soul. Which makes it both more frightening and more rewarding.
A few times I was surprised to find myself crying...in every case simply because I was moved by the expression on someone's face, or a plaintive wail of sorrow from one character on behalf of another. I suppose to me, the sweetest thing about the story (and especially the way it was portrayed on film) was how it emphasized the connection between beings...the Fellowship of the Ring is made up of four hobbits, an elf, a dwarf, two men, and a wizard. That has to mean something-- that they stand no chance against Sauron unless they stay united. Silly me, but it was touching.
Liam
(2000)
The realities of life through the eyes of an innocent.
19 June 2008
When little Liam's father loses his job during the Depression, the family struggles to hold things together. As the world around them comes apart, we see how everyone in the family deals with the stress in their own way. Liam's dad joins the fascists, his brother attends secret meetings of the socialists, his sister goes to work as a housekeeper for a wealthy Jewish family, and Liam searches for answers in Catholicism, under the strict guidance of his haggard mum, his teacher, and the local priest.
As life becomes increasing more insecure, people begin to turn more desperately to their own belief system for answers. Religious, ideological, class and family ties all compete for primacy. We see Protestant versus Catholic, gentile versus Jew, fascist versus socialist, neighbor versus neighbor and father versus son. Unfortunately, life is not so simple as that, and each family member finds themselves torn between their loyalty to their loved ones, and their own pride and perception of righteousness. The tragic climax leaves no doubt as to the director's own perspective.
The young actor who plays Liam is perfectly cast as an innocent child forced to deal with the harsh realities of life. Although reminiscent of some recent films, this one is more raw than "Life is Beautiful" and more genuine than "Billy Elliot." This is not a movie for anyone who is merely seeking an escape, as it demands an intellectual commitment from the viewer. And while it makes some profound points beautifully, it ultimately leaves you with more questions than answers.
As life becomes increasing more insecure, people begin to turn more desperately to their own belief system for answers. Religious, ideological, class and family ties all compete for primacy. We see Protestant versus Catholic, gentile versus Jew, fascist versus socialist, neighbor versus neighbor and father versus son. Unfortunately, life is not so simple as that, and each family member finds themselves torn between their loyalty to their loved ones, and their own pride and perception of righteousness. The tragic climax leaves no doubt as to the director's own perspective.
The young actor who plays Liam is perfectly cast as an innocent child forced to deal with the harsh realities of life. Although reminiscent of some recent films, this one is more raw than "Life is Beautiful" and more genuine than "Billy Elliot." This is not a movie for anyone who is merely seeking an escape, as it demands an intellectual commitment from the viewer. And while it makes some profound points beautifully, it ultimately leaves you with more questions than answers.
Fahrenheit 9/11
(2004)
"I'm a War President."
19 June 2008
Warning: Spoilers
To be fair, I should qualify this review by saying that I'm progressive, a political science professor, anti-war, and a Bush opponent. So I was hardly watching this film with an objective eye.
That being said (and if you can still trust my review), Michael Moore has done American voters a big service by making this film. It's not without it weaknesses, namely the voice-overs where Moore speculates on Bush's thoughts during those endless blank stares. But for once, Moore has made a film that is woven together with a chronological and thematic logic that ultimately asks one critical question: Is it that the Powers that Be don't understand, or that they simply don't believe in, true democratic principles? While George W. Bush is the primary subject of the film's critiques, the Democrats are not left unscathed. In fact, the first 10 minutes are devoted to a skewering of the Democratically-controlled Senate (including, ironically, former V. P., Senate President, and Presidential contender Al Gore.) Moore's commentary here, as with his past films, revolves around the relationship between money and power, and how that connection degrades democracy and in its most insidious form, leads to the loss of innocent lives. While he holds the Bush family and key administration officials most directly accountable, Moore does not let anyone off the hook. This includes not just the usual suspects (Saudi Arabia), but the Democratic leadership, the Supreme Court, the media, and finally, the American voters. Nothing here is new to anyone who has spent any time perusing the alternative or progressive media in the past four years, but the effect is substantial because Moore has finally shown himself to be a true documentarian, and has woven together a coherent picture of the connections between the players and the events from December 2000 to the present. Setting aside the few moments of Moore's own commentary and some silly interjections of old westerns, the message ultimately relies on the presentation of documents, images, and interviews. The facts are so tight that the worst anyone can say about the veracity of the film is that it is biased, a critique that will carry far less weight when compared to the snippets of Fox news propaganda spliced into the movie.
Moore will be called anti-American, unpatriotic, and probably a fascist. This, of course, is the last resort of a regime and its supporters who have no credible challenge to the facts of the film, only to its message. Ultimately, all audiences, regardless of their political proclivities, should be able to see that Moore is anything but anti-American or anti-democratic. The single biggest piece of the film is devoted to following around the mother of a soldier killed in Iraq. She is a patriot and a "true American", by any definition. Her son, and the thousands like him, are honored by Moore. They are portrayed as heroes, but also as victims. They are protectors of American security, but also pawns in a global struggle for power.
By finally asking the right questions (4 years too late??), Moore has shown himself to be not just a solid filmmaker, but a patriot and a defender of the most sacred American liberty- free expression.
That being said (and if you can still trust my review), Michael Moore has done American voters a big service by making this film. It's not without it weaknesses, namely the voice-overs where Moore speculates on Bush's thoughts during those endless blank stares. But for once, Moore has made a film that is woven together with a chronological and thematic logic that ultimately asks one critical question: Is it that the Powers that Be don't understand, or that they simply don't believe in, true democratic principles? While George W. Bush is the primary subject of the film's critiques, the Democrats are not left unscathed. In fact, the first 10 minutes are devoted to a skewering of the Democratically-controlled Senate (including, ironically, former V. P., Senate President, and Presidential contender Al Gore.) Moore's commentary here, as with his past films, revolves around the relationship between money and power, and how that connection degrades democracy and in its most insidious form, leads to the loss of innocent lives. While he holds the Bush family and key administration officials most directly accountable, Moore does not let anyone off the hook. This includes not just the usual suspects (Saudi Arabia), but the Democratic leadership, the Supreme Court, the media, and finally, the American voters. Nothing here is new to anyone who has spent any time perusing the alternative or progressive media in the past four years, but the effect is substantial because Moore has finally shown himself to be a true documentarian, and has woven together a coherent picture of the connections between the players and the events from December 2000 to the present. Setting aside the few moments of Moore's own commentary and some silly interjections of old westerns, the message ultimately relies on the presentation of documents, images, and interviews. The facts are so tight that the worst anyone can say about the veracity of the film is that it is biased, a critique that will carry far less weight when compared to the snippets of Fox news propaganda spliced into the movie.
Moore will be called anti-American, unpatriotic, and probably a fascist. This, of course, is the last resort of a regime and its supporters who have no credible challenge to the facts of the film, only to its message. Ultimately, all audiences, regardless of their political proclivities, should be able to see that Moore is anything but anti-American or anti-democratic. The single biggest piece of the film is devoted to following around the mother of a soldier killed in Iraq. She is a patriot and a "true American", by any definition. Her son, and the thousands like him, are honored by Moore. They are portrayed as heroes, but also as victims. They are protectors of American security, but also pawns in a global struggle for power.
By finally asking the right questions (4 years too late??), Moore has shown himself to be not just a solid filmmaker, but a patriot and a defender of the most sacred American liberty- free expression.
The Kite Runner
(2007)
Glimpses of hope and humanity amongst the ruins of Afghanistan.
19 June 2008
Warning: Spoilers
This is a raw, deeply moving, heart-wrenching film no matter how you slice it, but it is even more so if you have read the book first and have a sense of the larger context Hosseini intended. In the book, the primary themes of 1) Amir's difficult and conflicted relationship with his father, 2) the profound role that Rahim Kahn plays in Amir's development, and 3) the formative role of the "incident" in Amir's sense of self are given a lot of room to evolve. In a two hour film, those things can unfortunately only be touched upon, and might leave the casual viewer with some confusion about Amir's motivations as a character.
That said, this movie is not only a feast for the soul with its themes of forgiveness, redemption, unconditional love, and kindness in the most inhuman times, but it is a sensory feast as well. The scenes set in Kabul and Peshawar take you to those places- the sites, sounds, smells, and even the feel of a breeze on your sleeve. I was immediately taken in by the pathos of these characters, especially as children, and felt the angst of their shame, sorrow, and regret.
The visions of Taliban-controlled Afghanistan are nightmarish, but Forster does an incredible job of sprinkling the horror and indignities with doses of humanity. The actors portraying Amir's driver and the director of the orphanage are just two examples of how excellently these complex realities are translated to the screen.
I know this film wasn't a big commercial success- it's unfortunate that something with themes this profound and universal is so easily disregarded by the average movie goer, but I hope that this film holds up to the scrutiny of time and not only endures, but eventually receives the audience it so deserves.
That said, this movie is not only a feast for the soul with its themes of forgiveness, redemption, unconditional love, and kindness in the most inhuman times, but it is a sensory feast as well. The scenes set in Kabul and Peshawar take you to those places- the sites, sounds, smells, and even the feel of a breeze on your sleeve. I was immediately taken in by the pathos of these characters, especially as children, and felt the angst of their shame, sorrow, and regret.
The visions of Taliban-controlled Afghanistan are nightmarish, but Forster does an incredible job of sprinkling the horror and indignities with doses of humanity. The actors portraying Amir's driver and the director of the orphanage are just two examples of how excellently these complex realities are translated to the screen.
I know this film wasn't a big commercial success- it's unfortunate that something with themes this profound and universal is so easily disregarded by the average movie goer, but I hope that this film holds up to the scrutiny of time and not only endures, but eventually receives the audience it so deserves.
Into the Wild
(2007)
He's not a martyr, he just has a sad story.
19 June 2008
Warning: Spoilers
Here's the thing about this film, and I suppose the book, had I read it. Let me say firstly that I have a lot of respect for both Sean Penn and Jon Krakauer, and the performance of Emile Hirsch was outstanding. That being said, this film was beyond disappointing. The "moral" lends itself to great misunderstanding, and I think the movie runs the danger of creating a martyr out of a man who, while eccentric and interesting, is anything but a hero. I might have liked it if I was not already well acquainted with another well-known true story of man against the elements and the profound search for meaning in human existence. I found myself contrasting Christopher McCandless' journey to that of Nando Parrado, one of the sixteen survivors of the Uruguayan rugby team plane crash in the Andes in 1972. Parrado (who also happens to be a friend) chronicled his experiences in a 2006 memoir called "Miracle in the Andes," and I can't help but wonder how McCandless' road might have taken a different turn had he heard Parrado's story first. Of course, there were several differences between the two men's stories, but the most profound are these: while McCandless' isolation and solitude (including from his family and friends) was intentional, Parrado found himself in his circumstances because of dumb luck. What makes this ironic is that while both men ultimately discovered that the only antidote to death is love, McCandless' suffering (as well as the suffering he inflicted on his family) was completely pointless. The second major difference between the stories is that while McCandless succumbed to "fate" when, as it turns out, he could very likely have survived, Parrado- whose death was a virtual certainty- refused to give in. Parrado even wrote in his book that although he was sure he was dead when he began his trek over the Andes (which lasted 11 days and took him over 17k foot peaks in nothing but street clothes and after starving on the mountain for 60 days), he *chose* to keep breathing in and out, so that when he did finally drop, he would die "one step closer to his father." McCandless, on the other hand, ran from his father only to find out (too late) that his great adventure was simply an illusion. This didn't sit well with me. I sympathize with McCandless' need to let go of his dependency on the comforts and conveniences of life and to remove himself from the familiar in order to force a deep look within. But with all due respect to his family, I don't find any nobleness in McCandless' story. It is simply a tragedy. And a needless one at that. I hope it is that lesson-- and not some beautiful and tragic glory that Krakauer and Penn try (and in my opinion, fail) to wrestle from this story-- that people ultimately remember.
Dinner for Five
(2001–2005)
Good concept, but Favreau makes it unbearable.
19 June 2008
The concept behind this show is original and interesting. Get five actors together and give them a forum to talk about their careers (and film and acting in general) in a comfortable, open forum. Can't go wrong, right? Wrong. Despite having some of the most intriguing celebrities of the last 25 years on the show, Favreau somehow manages to turn this show into a pretentious display of smoke-blowing. Sure, he's the creator, host, and moderator, but Favreau can not go for more than 30 seconds without interrupting, one-upping, and name-dropping. He even finishes people's sentences. It's so irritating that it distracts from the interesting stories and insights that his most talented guests share. Is he so insecure that he has to dominate every discussion? Or is he just some kind of control freak? Whatever his issue, he has managed in the opinion of this former fan to completely undermine his own credibility. He should take a page out of James Lipton's book. John, we know you are smart and have seen a lot of movies. We remember "Swingers". Let it go already. Give your guests a chance to shine, and this show may yet evolve into its potential.
Chocolat
(2000)
Don't expect too much and you won't be disappointed.
19 June 2008
Don't get me wrong, Juliette Binoche is dazzling as usual, as is the doe-eyed Johnny Depp and the always reliable Judi Dench and Peter Stormare. But I decided to see this film after the Oscar nominees for "Best Picture" were announced, and thus my expectations were quite high. I was rather let down. It's a sweet film and the photography is beautiful, but it lacks real depth and substance. The story is predictable and rehashes familiar themes we saw in several superior films a few years back (e.g. "Like Water For Chocolate", "Antonia's Line", "Life is Beautiful", etc.). It's also too long. Alfred Molina gets too much screen time- I found him downright annoying and kept wanting to fast forward through his scenes. Carrie-Anne Moss is nice to look at, but underused. It's a good rainy day film, but that's about it. Not Miramax's best product in the last few years- inferior to both "Shakespeare in Love" and "The Cider House Rules."
Buffy the Vampire Slayer
(1992)
You have to be seriously uptight not to find this hilarious.
19 June 2008
I can't believe other reviewers called this moving "boring and idiotic". Um...hello...what were they expecting, a serious, contemplative piece of cinema? It's completely silly, as it's supposed to be. If it wasn't good, would it have inspired a (far inferior, in my opinion) television spin off? Watch it with no expectations. You'll be impressed. Kirsty Swanson does that Alicia Silverstone in "Clueless" thing perfectly. My friends and I have made it a ritual to watch this movie every couple months with a bottle of wine and a big bowl of popcorn. Nothing better on a rainy night. Don't listen to the bozos who said this isn't worth seeing. It's hilarious, trust me.
Breaking the Waves
(1996)
This film is not for the faint of heart or soul.
19 June 2008
Without a doubt, this is one of the most emotionally devastating films I've ever seen in my life. It seems to be a rumination on the true nature of goodness. Bess is a simple creature and her purity and innocence are delivered by Emily Watson in a heartbreaking performance that you will not soon forget. It is a crime that Watson didn't win Best Actress for this role, though I imagine that many voters were turned off by the disturbing subject matter of this film. I had a visceral reaction to the film in the form of serious physical and emotional discomfort. I had rented it, and actually had to stop it at several points and give myself some time to recover before continuing on. I'm not sure it's a film that I'd ever want to see a second time, but I believe it is a true work of art and am grateful to have seen it.
Tell Your Friends