Change Your Image
Truth
Reviews
Gladiator (2000)
Listen Up
"Are you not entertained? Are you not entertained? Is this not why you came here?" These were the words of Russel Crowe to the audience in the arena. But he's talking not only to the fans on the bleachers, he's also talking to those watching the film "Gladiator." The film is not a story about a hero - it's a story about the herd - ie: the Roman mob. Would there have been such a tragedy if vox populi (popular opinion) did not ask for it? They were the ones who wanted it. Likewise, we are the ones who are asking for it now. Are we so different from the Roman mob?
Erin Brockovich (2000)
"You Go Girl"
Erin Brockovich - single mom, sexy, unscrupulous - the classic 90s hero (let's face it, this movie is definitely in the 90s genre of feminist films). What is this film really about? On the surface, it's about a courageous woman who stands up to a large corporation in defense of some three hundred clients who she cares for very much. How touching. But what is it really about? This conventional film was trying to show that justice can and should be brought about in unconventional ways. Nothing wrong with that, right? Of course not. That's what heroism is about - doing that which is extraordinary to achieve good ends. But what exactly was the extraordinary thing that she did? Was it the fact that she used her body as an object? Or was it that she sacrificed precious time with her already-neglected children? Or was it her rude and often dehumanizing way of interacting with other people? What kind of hero is this?
Erin Brockovich may have achieved heroic ends, but did they justify the deceitful, cruel, and unseemly means? The answer is not for me to say, but rather for the viewer to think about.
American Beauty (1999)
A societal mirror?
WARNING: THIS IS A POSSIBLE "SPOILER"
There is way too much to discuss with a film like this, from the meaning of the title to the music selection during the closing credits. I will just deal with one area - that being the one positive thing (yes, I said POSITIVE)which one can get from watching this film. Let me first give the disclaimer that I do not recommend the film; it is absolutely depressing. Now for that one positive thing. Although the film made the human condition seem hopeless, it still taught a very important lesson. Think of the means gone through for the characters to end up in their hopeless situations. We'll look only at Lester for brevity's sake. Lester was going through what most people would call a mid-life crisis. How did he cope with it? He nihilistically gave into all of his pleasures. This is a great thing for the remainder of his life - the whole one year of it until he was ruthlessly murdered by his neighbor. But what if he didn't live for a year? Giving in to all of his desires can only satisfy one for so long. Think of King Solomon, the wisest and possibly the richest man to have existed, who wrote the book of Ecclesiastes. After trying out every possible feel-good experience life had to offer, he came to the conclusion that "nothing is worthwhile under the sun." This is a man who has reached the top only to discover nothing was there. Likewise Lester would have found nothing was there. Had he lived on, another year or so of pleasure would have left him in a more desperate situation than he had been. Who knows, maybe he would have ended up in jail. That's what happens when one selfishly does whatever they want all in the name of "happiness." "But," you say, "Lester wouldn't have ended up in jail; he knew where to draw the line. After all, he didn't have sex with his teenage daughter's friend when he had the perfect opportunity to." Sorry friends, but Lester crossed the line the minute he allowed his mind to be filled with erotic fantasies of that young cheerleader. In fact, that moment in the school gymnasium was, I believe, the turning point of the film. The decision to make her the object of his desire and not his wife had many other decisions implicitly attached. First of all, by doing this he violated the sacredness of his marriage vows. He decided that feeling good was more important than keeping a promise. The decision also included sacrificing a potentially healthy relationship with his daughter. The ultimate decision implicit in the willingness to fantasize was that of making himself, and only himself, all that mattered. Imagine if everyone made this decision. We would live in chaos. Morality cannot be based on an individual's feelings, or more specifically, their happiness. What if we all felt like killing our neighbor like Lester's neighbor did? It just won't work. American Beauty shows how "only counting on yourself" (as Lester's wife so confidently said) leads to disaster. Without something to measure against, without a moral law to abide by, life is not livable - at least not for long - as we have seen.
Wing Commander (1999)
game is better
I was surprised at how shallow the content of this film was. Chris Roberts had a better storyline in his Wing Commander series computer games. They are definitely worth checking out. Don't let this flop of a film discourage you from taking a look at the computer game.
The Pigeon Egg Strategy (1998)
Finally, a movie that breaks the rules of conventional filmmaking
I had the great privilege of watching the film with Max Makowski and asking him questions afterward. The film is a stroke of genius. Sure, there were a few continuity errors and other glitches which Mr. Makowski was quick to point out, but the arrangement of the events was absolutely like no other. Some compare it to Pulp Fiction, but there's no way the strategic non-linear order of Quentin Tarantino's film even comes close to The Pigeon Egg Strategy. Makowski said he thinks of his film like a ride at the amusement park; you go on a tour of everything and then come back to where you started. The most amazing scene was near the end, when two drunken men are walking from a bar to their car. Makowski uses a cross-fade effect that defines the feeling of drunkenness more than being drunk. You have to see it to believe it. I wanted to watch the film at least five more times to completely understand the story (that's how complicated the sequence of events is), but Mr. Makowski had to catch the bus. Supposedly he will release Pigeon Egg Strategy to cable television - I can hardly wait to see it again.
The Prince of Egypt (1998)
The disclaimer at the beginning does NOT claim the film is accurate!
The disclaimer at the beginning of the film does not claim the film follows the Exodus story exactly. I don't get it. It's a film; it's entertainment. Prince of Egypt was not made to change or replace the story of Moses found in God's Word. So then why is everyone so upset about it?! It's a great animated film. The integration of computer graphics with traditional animation made it look great. The celebrity voices and beautiful songs made it sound great. And the way the narrative was developed made it feel great. If you're going to watch it for the purpose of comparing its accuracy to Exodus, then don't watch it. Otherwise, I recommend it for all to see.
Patch Adams (1998)
Great commentary about the problems with the medical establishment
The film was great at making most doctors look like ruthless snobs who care more about their title than their patients. In reality, most doctors probably are not like this. "But it's based on a true story!" you say. Yes, BASED on a true story. Probably the fact that the dean and professors at Patch's school found his actions illegal is true, but that does not mean that all other humans were worms to them. The film should have focused more on Patch's endeavors to reach out to patients and less on the supposed "downfalls" of most doctors. More appropriate and true to how the system works would be to show the corruption in pharmaceutical companies and how their control effects the teachings at medical schools. They're the real culprits; the doctors are only a result of them. Besides that, the movie was pretty bad. It was very predictable and despite Williams excellent acting, a lot of the scenes seemed awkward and out of place. I would recommend seeing it if you like throwing up. It's sick to see another mediocre film that follows the same patterns of every other film and can't have a higher level of humor than funny faces and perverted jokes. Yeah, this one ranks up there with "Meet Joe Black." All the great cinematography wasted on a poorly developed story.
Psycho (1998)
The differences are too much to bear.
The new Psycho copies Alfred Hitchcock's Psycho (1960) almost exactly shot-for-shot. Not only is this a poor excuse for a "new" film, it severely lacks the precision and suspense prevalent in Hitchcock's films. The main discrepancies between the old and new Psycho, which drastically change the overall effect of the film, are fourfold. First is the difference between black and white and color; second is the different feeling the new actors brought about as opposed to the original film; third is the movement of the camera and characters in a space; and finally are the minor additions and deletions of elements or scenes incorporated into the film by Van Sant. It's not the fact that Gus Van Sant made the film in color that is bad, it is the fact that it is in color at all. Hitchcock made the film in black and white for a reason. It wasn't like he didn't have the technology to produce a color film (North by Northwest (1959) was made a year before). Black and white was the contrast between Norman Bates and his mother. Black and white created the mysterious shadows of the Bates' mansion and the dark silhouette of Norman Bates behind the shower curtain. Black and white was the struggle between good and evil. Color lacks these things and creates a more muddied appearance of the world of Psycho. Van Sant may have been portraying the difference between the 90's and the 60's, but was it worth it to sacrifice the significance black and white had in Hitchcock's film? It's not the same. The audience is more likely to laugh at Van Sant's film than Hitchcock's. Black and white is more serious. Anne Heche, on the other hand, does not look too serious. Every time the camera is close to her, the subtle smirk painted on her face looks as if it will burst into a laugh at any second. No one watching can possibly take her seriously as an innocent victim. Vince Vaughn also is untrue to the character of Norman Bates. Vaughn is big and muscular, whereas Anthony Perkins looked skinny and weak. In the new film, it looks like Bates is used to carrying dead bodies around. Of course, in both films it shows Norman carrying his mother's body down the stairs and mentions that he has carried it to the cellar before, but that is the only physical labor he would do. A fleshless body can't weigh that much. Perkin's body was more suited to the character of Norman Bates, especially because mentally ill people (and very intelligent people) are often frail and decrepit in other films. Vaughn looked more like a dumb college football player than a psycho mastermind. His movements also fit this big, stupid football player look. He moved about the space of the screen like he owned it, tromping all over everything. Perkins treated everything more delicately, as if his weak body would collapse if it was strained too much. This also let us know that Hitchcock was in control, not the actors. Mortenson, who played Sam Loomis, the lover of Marion Crane, also abused space in this way. His cowboy-like strut looked very sloppy compared to Gavin's portrayal of the character in 1960. Gavin walked like a soldier, following the exact path appointed to him by Hitchcock. The camera also moved in this manner in the original Psycho. Every motion of the camera and characters was precise. Van Sant has created some kind of free-for-all, carrying us through a violent ocean rather than the log flume we ride when watching Hitchcock's film. The masturbation scene shows where that violent ocean can lead. Where did Van Sant get the idea to include that in the film? He further expounds on this by showing a porno magazine laying around Norman's room. The real Bates would not have gone that far. The evil of thinking lustfully after a woman was bad enough for mother. Bates wouldn't have even thought of masturbating. He was a man of intense thought; such a physical expression of his thoughts would be inhibited. It was his mother who murdered people, not Norman. His job was to think and change the linens. All of these things contributed to ruining Psycho, but perhaps nothing was worse than the line, "Let me get my walkman." Lila Crane said this at the hardware store to Sam before leaving for the sheriff's house. There are other ways to show the new Psycho takes place in the 90's than by adding stupid, out of place lines like, "Let me get my walkman." Every line in the original Psycho served a purpose. Van Sant has thrown in a line that serves absolutely no purpose. It has been concluded that Van Sant has inappropriately added things to the film. He has also succeeded in taking things out. Minor changes can easily be found in each scene, but the most significant was the scene when the guy at the police station was explaining how Norman Bates' mind worked. In Hitchcock's version, there is a road map on the wall behind this man. In Van Sant's film there is not. The map is there to ease the audience. They're finally seeing the big picture. The map is a reassurance that no major details in the explanation are being left out. Gus Van Sant does not give this reassurance, except for reassuring us that no one can create a suspense film like Hitchcock. Even copying the master of suspense shot-for-shot has resulted in a film that betrays Hitchcock and his style of controlled suspense brought about through restricting elements of film, rather than proliferating them like Gus Van Sant.
Meet Joe Black (1998)
The director was trying too hard.
Meet Joe Black had excellent acting indeed. The composition of each shot, however, was too dramatic. The director tried way too hard to make everything in the frame appear perfect. The visual symmetry between objects in the background and also between characters was overdone. Just watch Joe Black when he walks up the stairs at the end with William Parish. It's almost ridiculous how balanced everything in the scene is. Overall, Meet Joe Black has good acting, a bad storyline, but great manipulation of sound. I would recommend seeing it for a change from other films, but not if you're expecting to feel thoroughly entertained. The warped philosophy of death was also rather disappointing.
The Waterboy (1998)
Another comedy, another poor quality film
The film was terrible. Sandler's role of naive adult has been beaten to death. Not one thing was funny about it. The kids in the theater (most of them under 12) were laughing the hardest at the perverted jokes and innuendos laced throughout The Waterboy. Even worse was the overall appearance of the film, which had lighting suited for the set of Seinfeld rather than the superior lighting usually expected on the big screen. The camera style was also inferior. Nothing about it was unique. The only good acting was by Cathy Bates, unless you consider Adam Sandler's role of idiot (which he played in his Billy Madison, Happy Gilmore, and The Wedding Singer) to be good acting.