iam-1 Reviews

Stage 2: The Duchess of Malfi (1972) Season Unknown, Episode Unknown

Long-Dead Play Ought To Stay That Way

[5/10 · 7 May 2002]

Firstly, I love classical theatre. Really! I do! Shakeaspeare, Marlowe, Shaw, Wilde, Molière. No problem! This, though.

The lighting is un-even and there are shadows galore. The sound is dodgy at best (alternately muddy and tinny), and you can tell where the microphones are from the sound levels for the performers.

The costumes are great, as are the sets.

The direction, though, leaves us with performances that are intence, but incomprehensible. Because of the sound, we often cannot hear hte words, but more frustrating is the fact that the meaning is not understood. We know that 'great things are afoot', but the 'why' and 'how' is far more important to the existance of the story than the 'what'.

Well played, this is a play that can provoke great debate & put questions of moral and socialogical structures - as well as entertain. This enactment leaves me wondering why I devoted over two hours to this film. Well, 60 minutes of viewing and 60 minutes of dozing off while my wife kept nudging me.

There has to be a better version that has yet to be made.

Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? (1966)

A must-see for all lovers of dramatic films

[10/10 · 20 May 2000]

Why did it take so long for me to get around to seeing this film? I was remiss in this regard. This film is brilliant - from the acting, to the direction, to the cinemetography, to even the hair & make-up, this film sings a morbid song of moral turpitude & psychological torture that can never be re-created or duplicated (at least not with this script). The performances are stunning - Taylor is ugly both inward & outward, Burton is intellectual & therefore more dangerous, Segal is youthful and strong but more easily used because of it, and Dennis is sweet and naive with a great pain inside her that represents the lost dreams and hopes of all of them. The direction is wonderful, even if the re-setting of half of the film is not true to the original play. In a way, it does add to the manicness of the story when the battle leaves the parlour to go to the lawn or the roadhouse and then returns painfully to the house, but we almost suffer too much when we re-enter that confining space & that is true to the text so I can't kvetch about that. The choice of shooting the backs of heads during some scenes is wonderful & real, giving it a cinema verite quality that I was surprised to see. And the editing is so good that I would almost believe that there were four or five cameras rolling simultaneously, the actors did the whole thing through top to bottom, and the editor had to just switch back & forth as the film went on. This speaks to the actors' talents, but the editor can make it jerky & disjointed so that you notice his work - it takes a master to hide his talent. The entire production team was making the same movie every step of the way. You owe it to yourself to see this, if only to learn how a drama can be done to great success. A good story (albeit sad) well told (even though it may leave you feeling tired).

Fail Safe (2000 TV Movie)

Worthy of a re-broadcast, or a 2nd look if you taped it

[8/10 · 9 May 2000]

This was something I was fascinated to see since I had first heard about it: a live broadcast in real time of an already produced story (twice, if you count _Dr. Strangelove..._) in Black & White, on National TV, using old-style equipment & lighting restrictions, with an absolute stellar cast. Woah! And it works. I was, in a way, looking for mistakes or wrong steps from the actors and crew who are used to being able to go back & do it a second time, but there were so few that it makes no point in listing them. Generally everyone gives what is needed to the effort, and the dedication of the cast to the text is obvious to even the untrained observer in the audience. The story is paramount, and the only thing that suffers in this adaptation is the lack of tension and complexity of some of the characters' sub-plots -- but I may be remembering the original novel which includes all the back-stories for everyone, and the original movie has more tension because that was done in the time of the Cold War Insanity so it is infused with the immediacy of disaster being constantly present, and that's not something you can put into two hours of TV done in the year 2000. Darn fine camera work, direction, acting, and lighting. All of it gives the feel of a Playhouse 90, or Hallmark Hall of Fame, or any of the other 'great TV Drama' shows of the late 50's and early 60's. The only thing that could make it more evocative would be to put that weird hi-contrast halo around the image, but that would get in the way of the great camera work, and wouldn't fit with the wide-screen letterbox of the frame. Even if it hadn't have been done live, it would have been an amazing piece of work, but as it is, it's even more stunning to realize that all of those fine actors were truly 'in the moment' at the same time, and everyone made the same movie for the same two intense hours. This really needs to be re-broadcast, and win Emmies, and be hailed as a return to Acting and Quality on television. MOW's *can* be quality, if you put this kind of effort into them. Watch this to see how.

To Live (1994)

Wonderful, and correctly recommended

[8/10 · 8 May 2000]

A friend recommended this to us, and we're glad he did, as the story and characters are as engaging as one could wish. While the 'action' and 'story' is slow-paced, it allows you to really feel the struggle of the family to re-orient themselves in a constantly changing world. The scenes are longer than the conventional length of a North American Film's scenes, and that also allows us to experience the reality of the characters' moment. Wonderful cinematography, great art direction (especially the chillingly ironic use of Mao icons), superb direction, and strong acting. See this film to learn about how life is simple: you have a few problems, people die, you find away to carry on -- you find a way "to live".

Cappuccino (1989)

Innocuous, but funny and adequate.

[6/10 · 30 April 2000]

A nice little film that has much potential, some of which is realized. I wouldn't run to see it again, but it's perfect for an evening after a long week.

The best part of the whole thing are the two incompetent goofs who pursue the hero for the tape. You'll also see the mother from Murial's Wedding playing an actress who constantly knee-caps herself when faced with a career opportunity. It's not her bets work in this film, but she's convincingly neurotic, even if you want to slap her up-side the head every once in a while.

A nice view into the theatre/ acting world with a bit of intrigue thrown in as well as some nice plot and directorial twists.

This Boy's Life (1993)

Watch this fine film with a few too many extraneous characters.

[8/10 · 1 March 2000]

Damn fine film, showing the irrationality of an abusive father. Difficult to watch at times, this film makes one want to smack the protaganist but then realize that that's what he wants so one must 'resist the dark side' and fight with logic, and that won't work. The solution is long in coming, but beautiful in simplicity. DeNiro is a different guy than we've seen before. Not a tough, Italian mobster, but more of a WASP nebbish with a Pacific Northwest accent (eg: "Worshington State"). DiCaprio does well and is believable as a bratty kid who is being emotionally crushed. Barkin does fine as the mother who is just trying to make a life as best as she can for her son - hers is not a simple role as there is much layering and resistance within it. The rest of the cast is under-used, and the story's verisimilitude would suffer if they were not included, but the story would benefit from the cutting of Skipper (who only gets to cheese off his father a couple of times before he dissappears - Ansley deserves better), and about half of the various kids in the town. Jack's 'intelligent' friend needs to stay, but the story is about Dwight, Mom, and Jack. The other characters give us an idea of things to come from Dwight, but they are a little in the way once things get going. None the less, a very fine film. Do not watch it too close to Father's Day.

Ghosts of Mississippi (1996)

Watch it for the story & the acting - but not to be inspired.

[7/10 · 27 February 2000]

A fairly decent film, but not one to inspire mass demonstrations for continued change to society. Whoopi Goldberg is regal as the grieving Widow Edgers. Baldwin is competant but a tad boring as the Ass't D.A. And Woods is heavily made-up, but does a fine job of making you squirm, even if he only gets to do it in a few scenes. Somehow, you just don't get too riled up at what's going on for these people, except when "Delay" gets up on his White Supremisist Horse. You should get scared for Baldwin's family what with all the threats, but you don't. You should feel the tension in his parent's dissaproval of his following of the case, but you don't. Odd. This film's most surprizing facet is Rob Reiner's direction - if you thought all he could do was comedy, then see this movie and realize his capabilities. Even though there are many things that you don't care about - which I mentioned in the paragraph above - I was still impressed by Reiner's strong sense of story and character. He just needed to either tighten up the editing, or get the actors to raise the intensity of what is at stake for them in the movie. All in all, a good story, good direction, some good performances, but it's not inspirational.

Gamera, the Guardian of the Universe (1994)

NOW with 35% LESS CHEESE than previous movies!

[5/10 · 22 February 2000]

Goodness, what we do for the love of our spouses. Jennifer comes home after a long hard day at work with a bottle of wine and a video under her arm. Chick flick? Sure, if you consider a Turtle attacking a pre-historic bird a 'chick-flick'. And you know, it's not all that bad, considering. The reason we watch these movies is the cheesy special effects, the bad acting, and almost invisible plot line or a plot line that is so far-fetched that you roll on the floor laughing in a silly, drunken stupor. This hits most of the 'hot-spots' with its bad acting, and the plot that is both thin and silly at the same time. The special effects for this are pretty damn good! I mean, it's no Return of the Jedi, but it's some kind of impressive if you're expecting a bunch of guys in rubber suits stomping all over a bunch of balsa-wood cubes that are supposed to be skyscrapers. Sure, there are some guys dressed up as Turtles and Birds, but you can spot them and they fit right in with the digital effects. I'm not sure how to put this, but the silly effects are not so silly that you are disappointed. Granted, the desire to see a really cheesy monster movie will not be sated by this - for one thing, it's in colour - but it's a worthwhile way to get an introduction to the Japanese Monster movie genre.

The Scent of Green Papaya (1993)

What are we supposed to care about?

[7/10 · 15 February 2000]

Once hailed as being an amazing piece of art cinema, this film left us dissapointed. The story is told sparingly, which is fine, but hasn't enough of an arc for the characters to become ones we care about. The trials of the family that employs our young heroine do not fill us with dread, or trepidation. the action is almost non-existent. The camera work reveals what is obviously an artificial set - one that is well-made, but artificial none the less. The Direction is very light handed, and we are not allowed enough detail to select what is important. We only see one story/ set of details/ whatever you want to call it, and it is not explained in any way what is important or what the story is about. While I am not wanting to have a tale handed to me on a platter, I would like something to care about. This film is not it.

Homicide: The Movie (2000 TV Movie)

Finally, the last episode this excellent series deserved!

[8/10 · 14 February 2000]

This is the final episode we deserved. At the end of the last season, things were left in a 'life goes on' mood, which was hardly the wrap-up that this realistic series deserved. While not a happy show, this series was always one that made you think (a rare thing on television), and this is no exception. 'Is death justified by reasoning?' 'Are morals reflective of society, or is society shaped by the morals that are selected by the few in power?' 'What is a just death, and can it exist?' All of these questions, and more, are posed by the writers of this show every week, and this is their final thesis. Fine acting, great writing, wonderful camera-work, brilliant editing, clean direction. If you have seen the series and you missed this when it first ran, then get a hold on a copy somehow. If you never watched the series when it ran, then this will stand up on its own, but it may be heavy going trying to keep up with who all the characters are and what they are alluding to in their varied pasts. For those of us who were avid viewers of the series in the last two seasons, this is very satisfying viewing.

Extraordinary Visitor (1998)

Sweet, but a tad muddled.

[7/10 · 14 February 2000]

While the idea is a good premice, the actualization of it is a tad muddled. St. John coming to Newfoundland to find 'hope' for humanity is about as lunatic as one can imagine, but where is fall-down humour in this film? It tries to be too nice, thereby killing the momentum of the comedy. While the acting is real and solid, the writing seems a little forced - as though it was re-written by a committee whose members all had different ideas as to what the script must impart to us. there is a strong case made for not believing in modern consumerism using Jesus overthrowing the money changers as a model; but it's used twice, therefore reducing the impact. St. John performs miracles and points out that people will not believe, but this is not followed as a theme more than simply introducing it. A good effort, but not worth the effort of seeing it again, or rushing to see it, as is not as full as it could be, or as multi-layered as it ought to be, given what it's supposed to be.

Titus (1999)

Bloody good, in both senses.

[10/10 · 14 February 2000]

This is the film that made Sir Anthony claim he would never make another film again. After seeing it, you'll beg him to keep working (he's since changed his mind, thankfully). But its not just his work that makes this film work, its everybody's - direction, cinematography, costumes, art direction, make-up... you name it. This version of Shakespeare's bloodiest play is as close to perfect as one could imagine. I will grant that my experience with the play was previously limited to enumerations of the physical manglings of the characters within it, but those alone made me wonder how the story could fitted into the evening with so many choppings and bleedings and raping. Yet, Titus himself comes off as being one of the most noble and suffering of the Bard's heros, as hero he is. Titus Andronicus has to deal with revenge upon him from the Gothic Warrior Queen, who is embittered by the death of her first born son by Titus' order. Meanwhile, there is a political struggle for the position of Caesar, with two brothers battling it out with the Senate. Titus chooses one, therebye beginning the destruction of his world, at least in one way. The brothers are battling for the control of much, and at one point this includes the hand of a girl. This ends in tears, brought about by the sudden involvement of the remaining Gothic sons (their mother is now favoured at court, so they are as well). To be honest, any more detail is going to ruin it, but suffice it to say that Titus is put through so much that you wonder if Old Bill S. modelled the guy on Job of the Bible. Everybody seems to be out to get him in some way or other, even if it's just to mock him or make him go insane. The acting in this is inspired. The villians (and there are no shortage of them) are deliciously evil, with the possible exception of Saturnia who is directed to run around and yell a lot (this may be true to the character's text, but for Heaven's sake, it gets boring after awhile, Ms. Taymore!). The sets are both sensual and evocative of a modern interpretation of ancient Rome - as if you combined Pre-Depression Berlin, Modern-day Elegance, and Sci-fi Future brushed metal. The make-up for the villians is suitably worn, as though it's been slept in after an all-night orgy. For the rest, the make-up is typically invisible. The only problem I have with it is the occasional intrusive use of multi-media visions, a la Peter Greenaway. While they're neat and evocative, somehow they don't fit the rest of the whole. It would have been better to either do something tamer (more traditional "vision" stuff with a bit of fog) and let the viewer decide of it was real or a dream. All in all, this is a GREAT film, even with the few problems. You must have a strong stomach, as this is not a film that pulls its punches in the visuals department (there's a lot of blood everywhere), and its shock value is pretty high at times, but if you don't have a problem with any of that; run, do not walk, to your local theatre.

South Central (1992)

One of the better examples of the "Criminal makes good" genre.

[7/10 · 31 January 2000]

This movie makes you care about its characters. This should be said about all films, but this one accomplishes it where others do not. The story revolves around a young man in South Central Los Angeles who is involved in a gang that is slowly making itself successful by selling drugs. He goes to jail after being convicted of shooting another gang lord. While in prison, his son grows up and is drawn by the romance and easy money of his father's old gang, and becomes involved as well. The story is a little over-simplistic, and the dialogue is a bit thin at times. But the director and cast rise to the challenge and turn this into a film about relationships and philosophy, rather than going for the easy solution of shooting off as many guns as possible. The ending is one of the most sappy we've seen in a while (just a bit too much 'Mom and apple pie'), but given the situation you are willing to go with it. While it's not perfect, this film ultimately works -- which is better than 95% of this genre.

The Natural (1984)

Un-like most sports movies, this romantic film works!

[8/10 · 31 January 2000]

On average, sports movies either leave me cold, make me laugh at the jingoistic stuff they put in, or on rare occasions actually work and move me. This is one of the latter movies. While using the standard recipie of 'slow down the action and make things look like ballet', the film actually transends the stereotypical Baseball Is Life thing. The story is a bit hokey, and steals from the old Aurthurian legends too often, but it does so in such a sweet way that you have to love it. What does not work is the lack of resolution in several story lines, which I won't go into, but suffice it to say that you'd like to see more tidiness in the details in a picture this beautifull. Also, Redford appears as a supposedly 17 - 20 year old version of himself early on and you have to remind yourself that he's supposed to be some young phenom, not a 40 year old trying to look younger. Sorry, Bob. Generally a fine movie for a Sunday night when spring training hasn't started getting everyone bogged down with the hype that has ruined a game that is best played by fathers and their sons in the neighborhood ballpark/ vacant lot.

The Prize (1963)

Newman's suits!!!! Elke's dresses!!!!

[7/10 · 31 January 2000]

Paul Newman is funny! Wow! I'm used to him in heavy pieces by maudlin American Playwrights, and here he is being suave & flirtatious! A funny movie, an adventure/ spy movie, and some drama. Anything more would give away too much of the plot. Newman is convincing as the American Novelist who has a drinking problem, but is drinking to get over his artistic frustration. Robinson is also good as the former German Physicist, with an accent and perfomance that makes you forget gangster films quite quickly (in fact, my wife & I didn't even recognize him - he was just 'one of those familiar guys'). Summers is funny, and quite sexy (Jennifer wanted her dresses, and I wanted her to have her dresses as well! Come to think of it, I want Newman's suits). While there are a few weak spots in this film, there are few, with great photography and good editing. The music does remind one of the original Star Trek's broadcasting of 'things are getting serious and violent now', but it's of its period and is forgivable. Really good, but not great. We've paid big money to see a lot worse films than this.

GoldenEye (1995)

Typical Bond, and earns its place in the Canon

[7/10 · 26 January 2000]

No-one watches a Bond film for intellectual stimulation. Girls, gadgets, gazillions of stunts. Goldeneye delivers. As silly as the Evil Bond Girl is; as stunningly unbelievable as the airplane stunt before the credits is, as implausible as the Russian accent on the Computer Hacker is, this is a worthy addition to the Bond Series of films. Maybe not the best one, but it earns it keep. Bond is once again pitted against a villain bent on destroying a major city, and again he is aided by a brainy but buxom babe. Sound like 90% of all Bond films? Yes... what did you expect? Good stunts, good acting (for the genre), good characters (especially the CIA agent), and good special effects. Not too many ludicrous plot twists, some witty lines, and some of the usual titillation make this a fine film to watch Sunday night when your brain really needs some eye candy.

The Border (1982)

Good film, with unusually nice character for Nicholson.

[8/10 · 25 January 2000]

Imagine a film where Jack Nicholson does not play a drugged out, gun waving, Lothario. You're now imagining THE BORDER. It's a drama filled with moral questions, humanity, and isn't preachy as a result. Nicholson plays a Border Patrol Officer who, as a result of his wife's insistence that she does not want to spend the rest of he life living in a trailer, moves to a Texas border town to live in a duplex that is part-owned by a friend of hers. He is then tempted by moral questions involving bribery and corruption as a result of his new situation. The writing and acting is surprisingly light-handed, even with these angst-wridden situations. We don't have any of the usual 'oh, what shall I do with this problem' furrowing of brows and tense shoulders approaches. Keitel and Nicholson swear-up a storm as usual; and the people sneaking across the border are constantly referred to as "wets"; but these are so typical of the situation, and real, you feel no discomfort at them - this is how these people talk. And Jack's character is a regular, likeable guy. He's not creeping you out, as he usually does. What a nice change for him. It makes you wish he'd return to that type of character. Good writing, good direction, great cinematography, and seamless editing, coupled with an evocative but not cloying score from Ry Cooder, makes this film worth seeking out.

Lawrence of Arabia (1962)

See this on the big screen and you'll be left breathless and parched.

[10/10 · 25 January 2000]

A wonderful evocative film, LAWRENCE OF ARABIA deserves to be see on the biggest screen you can find. Beg, borrow, or steal a theatre, do the same with a copy of the movie, then plant yourself for 221 minutes of desert dryness (a big orange drink and a bucket of popcorn with not too much salt would be advisable). There is an intermission; and that's good, because you may want to go and walk through some wet grass at this point just to remind yourself that there is more water in the world than sand. The story is basic - British Military Man aids Bedouin during WWI. The rest is character development and scenery. This may sound like belittlement, but its not. O'Toole's eyes bore through you like laser beams. The scenery and camera work is amazing. The action sequences are breathtaking. The story is convoluted enough to keep you from being bored sitting in a theatre for this length of time. Everything will simply leave you feeling exhausted from the sweeping quality of the work.

Citizen Kane (1941)

Something for everyone to love!

[10/10 · 25 January 2000]

What can one say that hasn't already been said about this movie? It's brilliance is trumpeted by better than I for years before and to come. And yet, here's my two cents. "Citizen Kane" is a perfect film. There's amazing camera work and editing techniques (not the first to use them, but the first film to use all of them in one film to artistic success), fantastic acting (they are acting 'on the line' or 'in the moment', and they are not over-the-top as was common at the time), a terrific story (made all the better by it's factual basis), and characters are ones that we care about (ibid). The frame is filled with small details that add to the scenes. The language and vocabulary are ones that remind us of the beauty that English can achieve, calling up mental images that are left un-painted on the screen but burn brightly in our minds. The lighting is evocative, but not overly moody. In short, everything works. The message is one of simplicity (be a human first, a collector and achiever second), yet is subtly delivered that you could easily watch this movie for the characters, the story, the action, the dialogue, or whatever you wanted to. That is the genius of this film - there is something for everyone to love in it, and it does it so successfully that it's difficult imagining anyone walking out of the theatre saying 'I can make better films than that.'

Richard III (1995)

This ain't your Gramma's Shakespeare!

[10/10 · 24 January 2000]

If you remember this play from studying it in your youth as being dry, dull, boring, and pretty much a waste of time if you like tension filled dramas, think again! This is a Richard the Third that is mean, nasty, evil, and closer to The Godfather than you might expect. Richard is sexy, he drives tanks, he shoots people, he manipulates events, he cracks jokes - he's everything your Gramma's Shakespeare wasn't. The setting is England, but this is far from a traditional treatment of the play. It plays the "what if..." game by asking 'what if the Nazis won WWII and England was now a fascist, monarchistic state? This gives us the great clothes, the cars, and the decorations that make the enactment so menacing, and therefore the story so effective to today's audiences. To see a bunch of guys sitting around a courtyard discussing what the king will have at his coronation ceremony is pretty dull, but this version has a whole different under-tone to the scene, in the same way that the restaurant scene in the Godfather does. A brilliant performance comes from Sir Ian, but don't miss the others'. Watch everyone; they're all worth it, as is the set, the cinametography, and everything else. Excellence oozes from every frame of this one. If you are a Shakespeare Purist and can only see it done in a traditional way, you will probably think it's far too contrived. But that's too narrow minded, in my view. See it because you like Shakespeare, see it because you hate Shakespeare, see it because you have never heard of Shakespeare. Just see the thing.

The Fall of the Roman Empire (1964)

Gosh, this is silly!

[4/10 · 24 January 2000]

Sure, you don't expect to have a Hollywood version of history conform to actual history, but you'd like to be able to expect them to make an historical epic worth forgetting the details of real history. Somehow, the fall of the Roman Empire has been made boring and silly in this "Toga Epic" shot in Spain. We don't care about the characters, really. Part of the problem is with the script being so derivative and shlocky that you can't even be bothered to see the next twist coming. The acting from Sir Alec Guinness and James Mason is solid and real, which is not surprising. Even Omar Sharif's thankless role is well-played. But as dominating as Stephen Boyd's character is, he makes it as alive and as fun to look at as the dove's entrails that begin the film - boring, ghastly, and just plain dead. Sophia Loren, usually a less than dynamic performer, shines like burning tungsten in scenes with Boyd because of the company she keeps. Christopher Plummer spends much of the movie with an odd "cat who just ate the canary and some catnip" expression on his face. Scary, demonic, and downright evil? No. Sappy, self-satisfied, and sleepy? Yes! The dialogue is silly. The acting is, mostly, silly. The story is boring, convoluted for the sake of being so, and silly. The action scenes are stolen from Ben-Hur, and silly. Ultimately, this is silly. The costumes and sets are good, the photography is good, the music and sound is good, but this is not the best of this genre by a long chalk.

The Hustler (1961)

What's all the fuss about? See this movie and find out.

[10/10 · 24 January 2000]

This is one America's best dramas. The acting and story are excellent, with some of the finest artists working both in front of and behind the camera. Even those areas that are weak in this film are part of the over-all excellence of the movie. I saw this thinking I would be watching a 'billiards movie', but was met by a solid drama that could be about a card player, a musician, a weight lifter, or a dancer. It's about people being the best at their artistic occupation and the human struggles they go through. This is one to see if you like acting, stories, or gritty scenes. It's all here, along with some stars and some action. Truly a worthwhile investment of time to watch.

Wild Strawberries (1957)

Bergman knows how to make you think.

[8/10 · 24 January 2000]

Bergman has been seen by many as being a depressing film makes, who speaks above the heads of most people. Thank God someone does! In this piece of genius, we are asked to consider who God is; what makes a life worthwhile; and whether human nature alters through the generations, or is it just the costumes that change? As usual, the answers are to be provided by the audience. We must chose for ourselves what we think is 'right' or 'just'. Bergman uses the usual pattern for him - a man is on a journey (life) and meets people who are going along the same road (friends and family), and they all head toward the end of their trip (death). They stop in for obligatory visits with relatives and for food (as we all do), receive an honourary degree (fame & success?), and then send the children off to a party held in our honour that we do not attend (funeral). What happens along the way is important, but we always end up in the same place - the end. Wonderful editing techniques, good story, good images, fantastic acting, and more ideas and questions to ponder than one film can hold - or so you thought. It's only after the film ends that these ponderings come to you. During the film, you simply watch a man travel from his home to another city, but this is far from what the film is about. See this film once, think about the questions it poses, then rewind and see it again. You will be rewarded for doing so.

Shakespeare in Love (1998)

Are you sure Shakespeare didn't write this last week?

[10/10 · 22 January 2000]

Never has a movie so filled me with the urge to get on stage and perform Shakespeare, possibly because it in not a Shakespearean Production, per se. And yet, it may as well be, for it is so closely structured to the Shakespearean Romantic Comedies that we see Will writing. We have sword fights; love found, lost, re-found; comedic relief; a deus ex machina resolution; and, of course, a dog ("you have to have a dog in it, Will!"). But it's so fresh and up-to-the-minute in it's references to movies and society they you're sure that Shakespeare has risen from the dead in order to prove that his structure still can hit the right notes with everyone today. Finely crafted script, brilliant performances, wonderful camera work, clean direction - this deserved it's Academy Awards (except maybe Ms. Paltrow's - as good as she is). See this if you haven't yet, especially if you think Shakespeare was some stodgy old fart who wrote boring plays you were forced to read in school. He really rocked, dude!

Ridicule (1996)

A feast for the mind

[8/10 · 22 January 2000]

Set in the time just prior to the French Revolution, this wonderful film gives a view into the secretive world of the Court of Louis XIV, and the ins and outs involved in currying favours. Strong acting, clear plot and characters, and lush cinematography give this film something to seek out for one's entertainment. The young heroine is one of the most truly beautiful heroines we've seen in a long time, and the witty repartee makes this a feast for the mind, as well. Make time for this movie, and you will not regret it.