A lovely film about a somewhat-romantic friendship between a straight married man and a gay single guy. An interesting note is that this story was written and directed by a woman, Zabou Breitman. The dynamics between the men, more subtle and conversational than physical, allow us to learn more than if the issue of sex was raised quickly. The romance is not about sexual attraction, but the role people play in he life of the other that bring forth emotions. This is a rich film, combining philosophy with sensuality, whimsy with beauty. While the pace is slow, there are twists along the way, beautiful cinematography, humorous bursts and many believable characters to keep us interested. Well worth viewing.
Reviews
8 Reviews
Across the Universe
(2007)
A mildly Potent Trip
9 February 2008
Julie Taymor does "Hair"; as a Beatles' Jukebox Musical, no less. As expected from Ms. Taymor, the imagery is exquisite. Most song arrangements are interesting, and the occasional reference to past interpretations (Joe Cocker) add some fun of recognition to this humorless endeavor. I am not sure who is the target audience as a Beatles fan I was irritated rather than entertained by the manipulative use of character named just to excuse some songs and the unfunny use of quotes ("She Came in Through the Bathroom Window"), and I found the plot too pale for those not fully aware of the catalog. "Across the Universe" is not a "bad trip" (pun intended), just not a potent one.
I'm Not There
(2007)
Less than the sum of its ingredients
31 January 2008
Todd Haynes is becoming the master of wasted opportunities. While this film is a pleasure when it comes to visuals, sounds and acting, and while the basic concept of interpretive biography is brilliant, this movie is as incoherent as Dylan's garbled speech. All these good ingredients are being put in a blender with A.D.D, and a phone-book worth of characters thrown it to boot. This plethora of small direction-less scenes will make sense to the very few, so this is ultimately a vanity project. (A note to those thinking THEY are to blame for not getting it -- you are not at fault here).
Dylan, the original, is one of the more fascinating figures of the 20th century. His ascent to be the "God" of folk music is unique, and his conversion to electric, seen by fans as betrayal, has proved to be a prophecy. Yet this film spends little time on his buildup, no time on his redemption, and his "betrayal" is portrayed without the context so it just falls flat. In fact, the most consistent massage of the artist here is refusal to be anything: "I am not X", "this does not mean anything". Hey Todd - any 5-year old knows how to say no to everything. Give us SOMETHING to chew on.
Just like Mr. Haynes' previous and similar misfire, Velvet Goldmine, this film is less than the sum of its ingredients. Artists that have excited millions of fans are reduced to paper-thin stylistic figures. One wonders if the director cannot understand their qualities beyond their aesthetics and has thus vowed to spoil it for anyone who might.
Dylan, the original, is one of the more fascinating figures of the 20th century. His ascent to be the "God" of folk music is unique, and his conversion to electric, seen by fans as betrayal, has proved to be a prophecy. Yet this film spends little time on his buildup, no time on his redemption, and his "betrayal" is portrayed without the context so it just falls flat. In fact, the most consistent massage of the artist here is refusal to be anything: "I am not X", "this does not mean anything". Hey Todd - any 5-year old knows how to say no to everything. Give us SOMETHING to chew on.
Just like Mr. Haynes' previous and similar misfire, Velvet Goldmine, this film is less than the sum of its ingredients. Artists that have excited millions of fans are reduced to paper-thin stylistic figures. One wonders if the director cannot understand their qualities beyond their aesthetics and has thus vowed to spoil it for anyone who might.
Chuck & Buck
(2000)
A wonderful, wonderful movie
13 July 2000
A wonderful movie about being stuck in the past and getting over it. Buck never got over that special friendship he and Chuck had at age 11, and he tries to bring it back even though his friend has moved on years ago. Chuck, now Charlie, has become "a successful grownup" and has no interest in revisiting his adolescence. This movie is gentle and funny. It has insights into relationships and sexual development rarely seen in movies. Loved it.
West Beirut
(1998)
Great film, lousy editing
17 September 1999
Many great moments-beautiful, moving, entertaining. One thing missing-a pair of scissors.
Want an example? Two?
Right after our hero's first scene in East Beirut-a clever way to bring him to the other side, a surprising location, a sweet encounters with the Madam and one of the girls, an interesting safe return to the west side--all a brilliant piece of filmmaking the story goes there again for the most unnecessary, irritating, and lame scene. Why did he go back? What did he really get there the second time except to learn that cute can take him only so far? And mainly-why do we, the viewers have to watch this?
Or take the case of the fat lady downstairs. Such overacting needs some chopping. True-she is a great comic relief. But some expert cutter would have sped the scene where she hits the glass in the cart so it will look less like a contrived moment. And the part where she seduces her husband is stuck in there unrelated to anything. How about having it interact with other scenes so it would not look so blatantly like a foreign object?
The film is taken as autobiographical. Well-the same guy who could not differentiate between cute and irritating in his youth, repeats himself years later while making his film debut. How frustratingly consistent.
I am pissed because such a potentially great film irritated me so much. Hey, Mr. Director-ever heard of the term CUT?
Thank you.
Want an example? Two?
Right after our hero's first scene in East Beirut-a clever way to bring him to the other side, a surprising location, a sweet encounters with the Madam and one of the girls, an interesting safe return to the west side--all a brilliant piece of filmmaking the story goes there again for the most unnecessary, irritating, and lame scene. Why did he go back? What did he really get there the second time except to learn that cute can take him only so far? And mainly-why do we, the viewers have to watch this?
Or take the case of the fat lady downstairs. Such overacting needs some chopping. True-she is a great comic relief. But some expert cutter would have sped the scene where she hits the glass in the cart so it will look less like a contrived moment. And the part where she seduces her husband is stuck in there unrelated to anything. How about having it interact with other scenes so it would not look so blatantly like a foreign object?
The film is taken as autobiographical. Well-the same guy who could not differentiate between cute and irritating in his youth, repeats himself years later while making his film debut. How frustratingly consistent.
I am pissed because such a potentially great film irritated me so much. Hey, Mr. Director-ever heard of the term CUT?
Thank you.
Outside Providence
(1999)
The Sound of One hand Clapping
17 September 1999
Why was Kingpin king? Why was Mary extraordinary?
Well-let me tell ya--because the Farrellys can really stretch. They can combine the crudest jokes with the sweetest love story. And the combination is what makes it all work.
Enter Outside Providence: A sweet coming-of-age / coming-of-age movie. Is something missing? You bet. The stretch is missing. The Farrellys doing sweet without the sour is like the sound of one hand clapping.
Oh, it was basically OK. Sweet, smart, and hilarious at times. Some fine acting. But at the end of it, I felt like I have seen a small movie. And I mean-a real small movie. Extra fitting for television. For this I dragged my ass from in front of the set?
Hey Peter! Hey Bobby! I got an idea for you: match your story with the media. Small movie = small screen. You want my 10 bucks? Give me what you are really good at. Stretch honeys, streeeeeeeeeeeeetch.
Well-let me tell ya--because the Farrellys can really stretch. They can combine the crudest jokes with the sweetest love story. And the combination is what makes it all work.
Enter Outside Providence: A sweet coming-of-age / coming-of-age movie. Is something missing? You bet. The stretch is missing. The Farrellys doing sweet without the sour is like the sound of one hand clapping.
Oh, it was basically OK. Sweet, smart, and hilarious at times. Some fine acting. But at the end of it, I felt like I have seen a small movie. And I mean-a real small movie. Extra fitting for television. For this I dragged my ass from in front of the set?
Hey Peter! Hey Bobby! I got an idea for you: match your story with the media. Small movie = small screen. You want my 10 bucks? Give me what you are really good at. Stretch honeys, streeeeeeeeeeeeetch.
Go
(1999)
No, it's not like Pulp Fiction. It's like Swingers. And it's a "go".
19 April 1999
Go is a "go". It's about several teens and twenty-somethings, with several plot lines starting at a supermarket and interchanging throughout the movie. We have here drugs, sex, violence--well, these are the Nineties. But the good news is that this is not a contender in Tarantino's blood fest--hello, nobody dies. It is--however--deranged, suspenseful, smart, funny, believable, and easy on the brain. It's like Swingers, only rougher.
one of my all time favorites
9 March 1999
It's been probably 25 years since I saw this movie (3 times), and I still have not forgotten it. It juggles ego, intellect, sex, myth, camp and humor in a shamelessly personal way. I have read some horribly hateful reviews about it--this movie is obviously irritating some unhappy people. Good.
Tell Your Friends