illusoryjane Reviews

Bowling for Columbine (2002)

A liberal's critique

[7/10 · 2 August 2004]

This movie was entertaining and interesting, but in certain ways it left me wanting. Michael Moore himself is somewhat irritating, and I found myself wishing he kept more to the background than he does. At the same time, the conclusions that he draws are compelling and pragmatic. This movie was not designed to be an argument. It was not designed to sway the viewer. It was designed to fuel the fire of the already convinced. Though I think that this is Moore's intent (concluded from interviews I've read), I feel that goal could be reached at the same time as convincing a few fence-sitters, and that would have made the film more powerful.

I have two main complaints regarding this movie:

First, I felt that Michael Moore sometimes crossed lines in his interviews that in no way seemed to further his cause or drive his point home. He interviews people as though looking for his answer, not their answer, and particularly seemed to be trying to strike a blow at the conservative masses. I thought this distracted the genuinity and plausibility of the conclusions that he drew. It must be said that the conclusions that Moore drew are of a nature that strikes at conservative politics. However, I felt that the facts he represented spoke for themselves, and that the blows should not have been dealt to conservative interviewees by asking questions designed to get emotional responses out of them.

Second, I found some of the statistics needed to be qualified with per capitas or percentages. When comparing the United States to England, for instance, it is important to take population differences and density into consideration. Straight statistics do not apply. I think the statistics were somewhat skewed by this oversight, however according to some rough guesstimates I made, it wouldn't have diminished Moore's point, only made it less dramatic (which would, indeed, have strengthened his case).

These two complaints hint at an even larger problem, however, and that is this: Because Moore presents his case in this way, he can never hope to have his message truly heard by anyone who isn't already on his side.

He Loves Me, He Loves Me Not (2002)

An interesting adaptation of an old theme

[6/10 · 30 July 2004]

The age old story of unrequited love, and all of the torture that it brings...or is it? This is the story of Angelique (Audrey Tautou of Amelie) who is desperately in love with Loic (Samuel Le Bihan). Loic is married and refuses to leave his pregnant wife for Angelique.

The story is told first from Angelique's point of view, and shows the pain she suffers, and the attempts she makes to win her love. Then, we see things from Loic's point of view, which is astonishing.

This is a fascinating example of story-telling. The plot has a very interesting and unexpected twist. I hesitate to go into much detail about the plot for fear of spoiling the surprise, but I will say this story stands distinctly apart from the drab, predictable plots, and neat endings that we are so used to in American movies. Audrey Tautou is wonderful. She has such an expressive way about her. My prediction is that her popularity in film will only continue to grow.

My chief complaint in regards to this film is that apart from the way the story is presented, it lacks originality. However, the execution of the story is often 80% of it's value, so I find this to be a fairly minor complaint. I was also a little disappointed with the ending. It seemed a trifle contrived. Overall, I don't hesitate to highly recommend this film, but watch it from the beginning, don't tune in on cable halfway through the flick. As I said, without the plot twist, the story lacks originality. Don't miss how the story unfolds.

Princess Caraboo (1994)

For those who love a story

[8/10 · 30 July 2004]

"Princess Caraboo" is about the selfish and fashionable endeavors of the aristocracy of 19th century England, about the role of true charity and from whence it comes, and perhaps most of all it is about humankind's fascination with the story. Although we catch glimpses of, and come to care for, the true character of Caraboo (Cates), the movie's namesake serves mainly as a vessel through which the subject of the film can flow.

In this movie a young beggar who speaks no English is taken in by a well-to-do family, and before long they have determined that she is a queen of the Orient. In no time, she is the town's sensation, and if nothing else, living like royalty. Her story attracts the attention of a newspaper man (Mr. Gutch played by Stephen Rea) who, in determinedly trying to discover the truth about Caraboo, falls in love with her. He half hopes the legend is true, half hopes that she's remarkable enough to have made up a story and a language and a manner to fool the very class she'd always been taught to fear and respect.

I liked this movie for many reasons. It must be said that it's decidedly predictable, but such is the case in movies that are not so much concerned with plot as with characters. The question is, are the characters worth making a movie about? They are. Cates is delightful as always, and in such a role in which she scarcely speaks, she has the opportunity to shine and to demonstrate (through action and manner) her ability to act the part. Stephen Rea is never to be outdone, and has a genuine ability to pull off passion in whatever role he plays. The British aristocracy is portrayed as largely grotesque and corrupt and mind-numbingly self-absorbed.

For my part, I always appreciate a movie that doesn't revolve around romance, and though this movie is touched with pieces of romanticism (definitely a chick-flick in certain ways), it's not about the romance. It is instead about how the story completes us, and how compelling the human imagination really is. Despite the moral values the film purports, Princess Caraboo is not didactic and short on sappiness.

I think "Princess Caraboo" is a delightful and beautiful tale, and I recommend it to those who prefer the story to the action, and who like to see the rich get theirs.

Love Actually (2003)

Actually pretty disappointing

[4/10 · 29 July 2004]

I remember hearing about this movie, and thinking it was a must-see, but upon watching it, I found it incredibly disappointing. The cast is excellent, and the movie wonderfully acted. Many of my favourite actors/actresses graced the cast. The idea was good as well. It was a depiction of all the different ways in which love takes form, including, but not limited to romantic love, platonic love, and unrequited love.

The execution, however, was lacking. Some characters were not fleshed out properly, and others given far too little attention. There were a few characters whose stories I failed to see the point or merit of.

Although there were some fine threads connecting most of the characters, the movie on the whole seemed disjointed and jumped around far too often. Too much was going on, and I felt as though it might have worked better as a series of short films, which incidentally would have also given a unique presentation for a feature film.

All in all, "Love, Actually" is not altogether not worth seeing. I'd recommend tuning in if you happen to catch it on cable, but otherwise don't bother.

Rubin and Ed (1991)

Quirky, weird, and utterly delightful

[8/10 · 29 July 2004]

This movie is a story of two failures who get thrown into each other's worlds for one of the most bizarre journeys ever captured on film. As an avid lover of truly weird films, I find Rubin and Ed to be an irresistible comedy.

Crispin Glover is, as always, wonderful. He portrays Rubin, a social outcast and complete shut-in who's forced to go out into the world to prove to his mother that he is making friends, so she'll give him back his stereo.

He comes across Ed (Hessman), who is a "fraud failure" trying his hand as a member of "the organization," which is portrayed as some sort of real estate cult. The two wind up traveling into the Utah West Desert to bury Rubin's recently murdered cat, and come to hate each other entirely as they become the most unlikely pair of friends.

This movie is not for everyone, and indeed it is not easy to find even in Utah (where it is set, and from whence director Trent Harris hails). Rubin and Ed is a remarkably strange and offbeat film. It's the epitome of a cult classic, and as such will inevitably leave you thinking, "huh?" However, if you're tired of Hollywood's sanitized story lines and obvious repetition, I highly recommend trying to find a copy of this movie.

Muriel's Wedding (1994)

A charming reprieve from American cinema

[6/10 · 27 July 2004]

I haven't seen many Australian films, but I have always been struck by their proclivity to grotesque characterization. This film was no exception. From her careless and unfeeling father to her deliciously shallow and beautiful, popular friends, Muriel is surrounded by the ugliest of humanity. Even our heroine has elements of the grotesque about her until her eventual awakening late in the film. Muriel's friend Rhonda is the only character who lacks the touches of grotesquely, and it's no mistake that she is the character to whom Muriel learns that she can turn.

Muriel's wedding tells the story of a girl who was brought up to believe in her worthlessness. She wants nothing more than to be married to prove herself a success at life and get away from the life she's known. In the midst of all her bad decisions (and in the light of one of the most moving tragedies I've seen in a comedy or drama in a great while), Muriel comes to realize that she is going about success all wrong.

This film is wonderful and charming, a true comedy, but without the saccharin Halmark ending and obligatory romance so prominent in American movies. This is the story of a real hopeless case, who realizes she's not hopeless and has had everything she needed all along.

Peter Pan (2003)

Beautiful and thematically faithful to the original

[9/10 · 26 July 2004]

P.J. Hogan's rendering of this classic story is timeless and beautiful. Though in certain instances the events of the story vary somewhat from author J.M. Barrie's stories and play, it is easy to forgive these trespasses when you consider that some things work well in print or on stage, but need to be changed in screen adaptation. Moreover, the movie remains accurate to the themes of the original story (more-so, especially, than previous adaptations), and even the darker side of the "children's stories" are captured in this film. The movie was brilliantly cast and superbly acted. The actors loved their characters and it showed. Jason Isaacs, in particular was magnificent as Hook, giving the character the touch of dignity that has been left by the wayside in other adaptations (most notably Disney's Peter Pan), while still maintaining the malignant evil and tortured soul that Barrie himself attributed the villain. The film is lushly beautiful, an elegant adaptation.