obsessed-2 Reviews

Munich (2005)

disjointed portrait of a man haunted by his own actions (minor spoiler)

[6/10 · 17 December 2005]

i really wanted to like this movie. i really, REALLY wanted to like this movie. to be sure, there were many individual scenes that were well done, touching, powerful, and whatnot. but despite the really marvelous performances of Eric Bana, Daniel Craig, Mathieu Kassovitz, Michael Lonsdale, and Geoffrey Rush, there was too much missing and too much jarring strangeness put into this film for me to give it a higher grade.

on the more positive notes, Kushner's writing is touching, almost haunting in many scenes. a few of the non-sex scenes between Bana and Korer (who plays his wife) have such a deeply felt poetic composition of reality that i wished they were in a different movie - i felt they belonged to another kind of story altogether. all of the performers in this movie pull out really incredible work, even down to Omar Metwally, who plays a small but crucial role as a PLO agent. when the audience is in a real-life scene with no effects, just the actors, it is wholly engaging.

the problem exists in the editing and a few overwhelming effect choices. there's a lot of story to fit into a very few scenes, but while the individual scenes do a good job of going from place to place in europe, the editing between scenes seems choppy and seems to leave a lot out. after the beginning explanation of what happened in Munich in 1972, there are quite a few flashback scenes which made me literally speak aloud "okay, i get it" in the theater. later, closer to the end of the story, the lighting and color choices which are meant to enhance the perception of Avner's emotional state just seem overwrought, overdone, and totally cringe-worthy.

then, a particular juxtaposition of flashback and sex scene actually made me physically ill - i could discern no good reason for the scene to go on for as long as it did, other than to finish the gory and horrific action story which was started in the initial flashback scenes. this scene was the one that toppled me over to active discomfort in the choices Spielberg had made.

finally, there were several clips from the actual 1972 coverage which were voiced by the late Peter Jennings, who most people know reported from on the ground at the Munich Olympics. i personally found these to be a distancing factor in the movie - hearing Howard Cosell's voice seemed more to belong to that timeframe, but Jennings sounded different yet was a current-day news hero. i do understand the choice Spielberg made here, but found it distracting instead of informing.

all in all, it's definitely worth watching for the actors and 6 or so of Kushner's scenes, but i can't imagine really *liking* the movie.

Jarhead (2005)

a really amazing study of one person's experience of war

[9/10 · 4 November 2005]

i went to an advance screening last night and i am still thinking deeply about the things i saw in that movie. Mendes does a fairly good job of portraying multiple political views; while throughout the film he weighs in more heavily on the anti-war side, you have to be aware that this is because the book on which the movie is based is written by a Marine whose opinions were biased from the start. there's no spoiler there - the movie opens with Tony Swofford's unhappiness at what he has done to himself, and proceeds to introduce the people who will carry him through the movie. as a bit of balance to Swofford's frustration with the Marines, Swofford's closest buddy in the movie, Earl Troy (played by Peter Sarsgaard) is in love with the Corps and wants nothing more than to do this for life.

even if you disagree with Swofford's opinions, there are some really miraculous scenes in this movie. the cinematography was excellent, and the desert scenes have a lot of power. it was interesting to remember back to the news coverage of Desert Storm, and compare the dry news footage of some of the scenes delivered here - true situations over which Swoff's story is mapped with such vibrancy.

definitely not a movie i'll soon forget.

Must Love Dogs (2005)

very flawed, but reasonably cute, fluffy summer fare

[6/10 · 21 July 2005]

i went to see this movie expecting something along the lines of Serendipitous, with dogs instead of snow. while i certainly was not disappointed at all with the dogs, i was definitely disappointed in the story.

Diane Lane is cute but annoyingly passive as Sarah, and John Cusack is typically quirky but definitely appealing as Jake. i didn't have a hard time sympathizing with Jake as he was written, but i quickly found Sarah and her life to be a bit of an impediment to letting go and enjoying the movie. her lack of willingness to take some control over what's going on in the first half of the movie is grating, and her later efforts to take control make her seem unbalanced rather than powerful. however, Cusack is at his usual engaging level of character portrayal, which made the movie still pleasant to watch despite the fact that the ending is terribly predictable in the most obvious 'Bridget Jones' style of romantic resolution (and there are quite a few eye-rolling moments in the denouement afterward).

as far as the supporting cast, it's a mixed bag. Ben Shenkman is an acting eyesore and i wish i never had to see him act again. despite the fact that i like Elizabeth Perkins' acting, her character Carol made me want to yell at the screen. happily, Stockard Channing is totally charming and charismatic as Dolly, the eccentric somewhat-sorta girlfriend of Sarah's father. i believe Channing is going to inherit Ruth Gordon's role as the perfect awesome older woman. Christopher Plummer does a good job as Sarah's father, and i totally bought his character... until the Yeats. Dermot Mulroney was underused as the "am i good or am i bad?" secondary romantic interest, and Michael Spound was a truly terrific foil to the others as a gay coworker and friend of Sarah's.

if you're looking for a completely mindless, drama-free romantic movie experience, this isn't a bad choice at all - just tune out when Plummer starts quoting poetry!

The Merchant of Venice (2004)

Beautiful, shocking, and above all, honest

[9/10 · 5 December 2004]

Michael Radford has done an excellent job bringing this difficult play to the screen. He has taken a play with a reputation for anti-semitism, and shown us that Shakespeare knew quite well the humanity of the Jews. Radford said after the screening, and I agree, that Shylock is his first tragic hero, the first of his characters to be undone by a driving, compulsive need for revenge. He also points out, quite rightly, that a man who was anti-semitic could not have written Shylock's speech of "If you prick me, do i not bleed?" Radford is himself of Jewish descent and he has picked out the good and bad of all characters with delicacy and honesty. no character is free from flaws; no character is evil. Radford has placed the play in the 16th century, which gives a lush background of Venetian politics and decadence on which to project Shakespeare's words.

If you get a chance to hear Radford speak about the film, I highly recommend you take it, since he gives details about life in 16th century Venice that illuminate a lot of the choices he made and give considerable extra depth to the viewing. I'm hoping that the DVD will come out with extensive commentary.

Jeremy Irons does a gorgeous portrayal of Antonio, a man who resigns himself to bearing the burden of his past misdeeds. Lynn Collins, a relative unknown, gives us an absolutely flawless, stunning, and detailed job as Portia. Not only is Ms. Collins beautiful - she also gives Portia layers of intelligence and humor prior to the trial scene i've rarely seen in any production of this play. the rest of the cast also does a terrific job, with a notable performance by Kris Marshall as Gratiano, and a beautifully subtle work by Allan Corduner as Tubal, playing the foil to Shylock. Finally, while Al Pacino pulls out his usual strong (and loud) performance, his best moments are when the camera focuses on him and he says no words, but you can see all the emotions and madnesses flowing into and out of him as he perceives his fortunes changing.

If you like period movies, I cannot recommend this movie enough.

Closer (I) (2004)

characters difficult to like do even more unlikeable things

[2/10 · 15 November 2004]

i just got back from a screening of Closer, which was followed by a Q&A with Mike Nichols. while i could tell that there was a lot of craft in this movie and each of the 4 main actors pulled out marvelous performances, i couldn't bring myself to like the movie overall. Nichols' discussion afterwards only made it more difficult for me to like it.

without giving spoilers: if you don't care about caring about your characters by the end of the movie, then you will probably enjoy the film a good deal. a manipulative young woman meets a pathologically insecure man who subsequently meets a coldhearted photographer who then meets a cruel, selfish, and conniving dermatologist. each of the characters becomes slightly more sympathetic in the first course of their story arc, and then get more and more horrible as the movie grinds on.

each of the characters pull out incredible performances - i really believed Clive Owen was that dreadful for the course of the movie, and that Jude Law could be that pathetic. Julia Roberts showed unprecedented emotional range, in my opinion, and Natalie Portman really was a shining jewel of talent. unfortunately, the actors made it more impossible for me to escape how much the characters bothered me, and how little the storyline offered.

Before Sunset (2004)

the intense beauty of emotional vulnerability

[10/10 · 29 June 2004]

As most may know, this movie takes place 9 years after the movie Before Sunrise, and takes place in real time. the characters of Jesse and Celine meet again, and in tentative and insecure steps, reveal to each other how much their fateful meeting affected the rest of their lives.

it is touching and amazing to see these two actors portray this gentle unfolding with such talent and joy. it makes it more remarkable when the actors (in the Q&A after the screening) admit they rehearsed every scene over and over again, going over every moment and movement in detail. they make it seem effortless, natural, and smooth. it's a tribute to both the actors that the audience never feels that their reactions are contrived, nor does the conversation feel at all directed.

whether you are a "romantic or a cynic," as Linklater put it last night, "you'll get something out of this."

Fahrenheit 9/11 (2004)

Ignore Moore's editorializing and listen to the people he interviews...

[10/10 · 27 June 2004]

I'm not much of a Moore fan, but I'm not against him either. He usually gets in his own way and trips over his own opinion in his movies, and it becomes Just Another Moore Vehicle. This movie, by contrast, does a really good visual job, and tells a two pronged story. Whether you believe his story or not, he puts together a non-fictional, yet not documentary, version of the Bush administration's reaction to 9/11.

He starts off with his opinion concerning the 2000 election, which didn't seem quite apropos to me, but it does set the style of editing. It also gets the audience full bore into the flippant monologue which is Moore's chosen way to editorialize. Then he focuses on Bush's attendance record for a while, before truly coming down to the point of the movie. It seems vendetta-ish for a while, but when you look at the movie as a whole you see how Moore is setting up a theme of "how Bush acts on his responsibilities," which feeds the rest of the film.

As a New Yorker, I cried bitterly with my memories when he turned focus to the terrorist attack on 9/11. However, I was extremely impressed at how he portrayed it. The editing and choices of footage are surprising and emotional without being too exploitative, ending in a beautiful yet desolate metaphor of lost lives.

From there the audience is taken to the much-reviewed "7-minute" scene, which would have been better if Moore hadn't continued with his very flippant remarks over the top of it. It is still shocking and sad to watch, though, and while Moore undermines his own work by mocking speculation of "what the President is thinking," there is no denying that Bush made a huge mistake at that time.

From here onward, Moore weaves his film around the string of mistakes, miscalculations, and manipulations surrounding the War on Terror that have plagued the Bush administration. I admit to being politically bored with the Bush/Saudi connection. It was interesting detective work, and it was intriguing to know that the people he placed in power had those corporate connections, but I didn't think it was the terrible thing Moore did. If Moore didn't think corporate nepotism was alive and well in American politics on both sides of the fence, that was a bit naive ;) I was even further annoyed at his "Coalition of the Willing" montage - I found it unconscionable that he portrayed the countries in such an arrogant, patronizing light (corresponding Iceland with a movie clip showing Vikings, and Palau with hula dancers), and neglected to add more active countries such as England, Poland, and Japan. On the other hand, once he's gone to footage of the Iraq war, he does a marvelous job showing the wide and diverse range of opinions in our own Armed Forces, from deeply inhumane to profoundly introspective and touching. He also does well when showing the transformation of opinion that happens to some soldiers and their families. When Moore stops editorializing and he just films these people talking, or adds news/media footage from hearings, press conferences, and other public events, there's an amazing sense of power to the content. Scenes of soldiers in physical rehabilitation, or scenes of policemen and state troopers expressing frustration, or scenes of congressmen on both sides expressing dissenting views - that's where this movie shines. I don't think I'll ever see any actor express anything as powerful as the face of the corporal as he makes his stance known. I also think that these scenes outstrip anything that could be done in a true documentary, because you can see with great clarity that this is a present-tense problem and people are still struggling with the ramifications of the decisions they've made.

People who tend to agree with Moore's stances will, of course, adore this movie. But to anyone who is a fence-sitter, I beg that you go, ignore Moore's flippant and arrogant editorializing, and just listen to the people he interviews. Don't let Moore put a wall of resentment up between you and the voices of the people in his scenes. If you listen, you will learn things, you will cringe, and you will come away with something more than what you had when you walked into the theater.