nchaudha19 Reviews

The Twilight Zone: Deaths-Head Revisited (1961) Season 3, Episode 9

A brilliant, chilling portrait of evil

[10/10 · 4 July 2006]

Minor spoilers, but read it anyway...

To me, this is *the* defining episode of the series. If you want to see this series' greatest writing and acting performance (and possibly some of the best filmed anywhere or any time), watch the first couple of minutes of this episode.

It's been mentioned in other posts, but I'll restate it here: it's when the Nazi captain asks the name of the town. And asks about "the buildings up on the hill". He is referring to a concentration camp, which he knows quite well, but forces a (presumably Jewish) innkeeper to tell him anyway.

The delight he takes in extracting this painful information from the woman takes maybe a minute on screen, but has stayed with me since the first time I saw it many years ago.

I don't want to give any more details away, but if you are even a slight fan of this series, make it a point to see this episode. It will haunt you.

One Fine Day (1996)

One Fine Movie

[8/10 · 11 May 2006]

***SPOILERS This is a terrific film. Romantic comedies these days are filled with tricks - "How To Lose A Guy In 10 Days" or "40 Days and 40 Nights" or whatever. It's all crap.

What I want in a romantic comedy is to care about the characters, and I want to want them to get together. This movie did both. Michelle Pfeiffer is terrific - and not just because she's beautiful (which she is). She convincingly plays a single mother desperately trying to keep her life running on all eight cylinders. And Clooney is charming, but also shows some depth in his first major role since hitting it big on ER.

The script is simple but well-crafted, and the direction is unobtrusive.

Will this picture change your life? Nope. But it will engage you intellectually and emotionally, it will make you care about a couple of people, and it will make you feel good in the end.

I was surprised to see so many negative reviews amongst all the positive ones. They're probably people who liked "My Big Fat Greek Wedding". This movie is for grown-ups, not teeny-boppers. It's about trying to find love amidst the busy-ness of life. And if you have any experience with living a complicated life, you'll love this movie.

SPOILER: You'll love the part at the end when they "sleep" together.

House of Strangers (1949)

Didn't do it for me

[5/10 · 4 September 2005]

First, I should tell you that I like classic movies. That's when they knew how to make 'em. 'Nuff said.

Having said that, this one fell short for me. Some interesting twists, but ultimately it felt melodramatic. And there was a lot of telling, instead of showing.

The romance with Irene felt forced. The father's negative influence on his sons is much better told in the Godfather.

In fact, that's what this felt like - a chick-flick version of The Godfather. Same forces at work, same conflicts, but a much softer ride.

I do like Richard Conte - obviously in The Godfather, but he also did a Twlight Zone in which he played a man afraid to go to sleep because he thought his nightmares would kill him. Terrific performance.

Susan Hayward never struck me as a very compelling actress. Honestly, it didn't have to be her in this role, could have been almost anybody for me.

I love Edward G. Robinson (especially in Double Indemnity), but here he is constrained by the material. He does the best he can with it, and it would have been a lot worse in the hands of another actor.

***SPOILERS***

One of the things I liked was the setup of the final scene - Joe orders Pietro to pick Max up and carry him upstairs. Joe, Tony, and Pietro (carrying Max) slowly walk up the stairs, while Joe tells us of the lessons he learned from his father. Lessons including finishing a man off while he is down. Fantastic shot, but not enough.

That Old Feeling (1997)

Absolutely Terrific!

[10/10 · 10 August 2005]

***SPOILERS, OK?!?! SHEESH, GET OVER IT!*** I have extremely high expectations for movies. Unbelievably high expectations - unreasonably high.

This picture meets - and even exceeds - expectations. Predictable? Yeah, but so what? You know that Molly's parents are going to end up together in the end. And you know Molly isn't going to end up staying married to the congressman. Who cares? That's not the point of the movie.

The point of the movie, is Molly, her heart and soul. She's so tightly wound, she's about a quarter of an inch away from blowing a gasket. For anyone who's grown up trying to keep their head straight while their parents were off being crazy, you'll identify with her instantly. She's so self-loathing, trying to run her world and feeling like she's failed any time any little thing goes wrong, that she can't even see that her husband doesn't love her.

Now, it's not that she's self-absorbed. In fact, quite the opposite. She's totally and completely giving of herself. Too much so; this is what comes about from a lifetime of having to keep other people's sh*t together. But she's simply not in tune with herself and her feelings, because of all the noise from all emotional sh*t going on inside her.

Slowly but surely, bit by bit, she loosens up. And it's not the kind of loosening up where somebody just tells you, "hey, relax, don't be so stressed out, everything's cool!", and the hero realizes, "hey, all I have to do is relax, and not be so stressed out, and everything will be cool - that's terrific!". I hate those kinds of movies, they're insulting. That's not how sh*t changes.

It's the kind of loosening up that happens slowly, subtly, without her (or the viewer) even noticing it. A slight shift here, a small turn there, a little diversion inside herself. Bit by bit, she goes from having a hurricane inside her head to feeling some bright, clear sunshine for a change. It happens without her even realizing it.

You won't realize it either. That's why people can't figure out why they like this movie. It just kind of sneaks up on you, then BAM! So relax, set your intellect on cruise control, and allow yourself to be fulfilled by a charming, wonderful film.

Collateral (2004)

Michael Mann shows us how it's done

[10/10 · 12 June 2005]

Riveting. Go see it. Look for a scene-stealing performance from Javier Bardem. Bardem easily holds his own against a surprisingly strong Jamie Foxx.

I'm an aspiring screenwriter. As such, I see a million movies. Most of them are terrible. I don't hate Hollywood movies as much as it sounds like I do, I just hate bad movies.

I want movies that draw me in intellectually and emotionally. I want to be riveted for 100 minutes and then I want to be paid off. I demand a tremendous amount from my movie-viewing (this is due to the pathetic state of my own life, but we won't get into that right now). I expect to be sucked IN to the world of the movie and not be allowed to think or feel anything else until I am released 100 minutes later.

That's what Collateral did for me. Cliché-free. Vincent is a bad guy but you don't hate him. In fact, he is quite sympathetic even though he is a serial killer. You feel for him. In his own way, he is not a bad man. Tom Cruise is not my favorite actor, but he has impressed me in Minority Report and now in this film. Here you get the feeling that Vincent went astray a very long time ago, and part of him knows it. And he desperately has tried to find a meaningful existence. In his own mind, he has justified the killings. He is a walking contradiction, a tortured soul. When he died at the end, I was moved to tears. And believe me, I'm no pushover.

Jamie Foxx was a very, very pleasant surprise. This movie came out before Ray, so he wasn't on the radar yet. But here, he just plain owns his character. Not much else to say, except that he breathes life into the film. He draws you in and holds you there.

The idea is deceptively simple. A hit man making his rounds one evening. But underneath the hood is a struggle for a meaningful existence. And brilliantly executed. I guarantee you will not see a whole bunch of stuff coming. If you REALLY did see it coming, drive to Hollywood because you're a better screenwriter than I am and you can earn a ton of $$$.

And style. Most directors we think of as "good" or even "great" directors, are just directors who know how to pick good material and can get good actors. I can count on one hand the number of directors I think actually have a truly unique visual signature: Scorsese and DePalma top the list. Kubrick is at the top of the list too. And Mann is at the top of the list. They're all tied for 1st, OK? I don't put Tim Burton on the list. Nor Coppola, Woody Allen, not even Welles. These guys are very good directors. But they do not possess a unique visual signature. You watch this picture and you know Mann directed it.

I think that's about it. This is how movies are supposed to be done, not moronic efforts like Vin Diesel crap or Colin Ferrell crap or Tarantino crap.

"Adapt, Darwin, i Ching, all that sh*t. Roll with it."

Columbo: Make Me a Perfect Murder (1978) Season 7, Episode 3

Unable to break it down; I just plain liked it

[10/10 · 17 May 2005]

I like Columbo. OK, I LOVE Columbo (not THAT way - what are you, from S.F. or something?) I usually like it because of the formula, but also because the writers almost always executed the formula with freshness and conviction. It's formula, you KNOW it's a formula, and yet it seems fresh.

For this episode, I can see the formula; the "perfect" murder, the comical scenes where a slightly befuddled Columbo shows amazement at relatively simple concepts, etc. And yet, somehow I don't really care about the plot.

For some reason, I just love this episode. I can only guess at the reason - Trish Van Devere plays a woman who is cool under pressure and displays no remorse when caught. And yet, you don't hate her. At least I didn't. Something about her as a villain was really appealing. Maybe because she took action, never complained, and stayed tough until the very end. But somehow she was just plain likable.

I agree about the weak Lainie Kazan sub-plot - and what was the deal with her and Van Devere being so close (something about Van Devere's apartment key). Were they supposed to be lovers? I wish someone could tell me.

Bride & Prejudice (2004)

Simply awful

[1/10 · 21 February 2005]

First, I'll tell you I loved Bend It Like Beckham. I've watched it a few times and I always find something new in the picture. The movie wasn't flawless, but it was very, very good and I enjoyed it thoroughly.

So it was with great expectations that I awaited Bride and Prejudice. Big mistake. Where BILB worked at virtually every level, B&P really didn't work at all. Here's my breakdown: Story: D-. Very little of this story holds up to any kind of scrutiny. It's forced. Seems like Chadha and her husband (co-writer Berges) shoe-horned in every component of Austen's novel into the two-hour picture, instead of shaping the picture around a tell-able story. Plot twists that make sense in the novel are thrown in without any real setup. Resolutions do not move the audience because they come out of nowhere. The movie's message is delivered in a politically correct, heavy-handed, sanctimonious way. The only thing preventing me from giving this thing an 'F' is that I've seen worse movies, where NONE of the story makes sense.

Performances: D. Aishwarya Rai is beautiful. Having said that, her beauty is not enough to carry the picture. And the moment she opens her mouth to speak, alas, her beauty fades into the wind. She should stick to modeling. Martin Henderson looks like a high school theater actor who accidentally walked on to the set of a movie. Zero charisma, zero acting ability. I've seen better acting in those soft-porn movies on Cinemax. Anupan Kher brings no energy to a role that is essentially a do-over of his performance in BILB.

Direction: D. With the story and the performances so bad, I find it impossible to objectively evaluate the direction. But to me, the director is the captain of the ship. This ship is a disaster, so I have to conclude that so is the captain.

Cinematography: C-. The cinematographer is a famous one from India. The shots are good, but not nearly enough to save the picture.

Fun/Likability Factor: D+. Sometimes I find that despite a terrible story, or awful performances, or a terrible production, I somehow enjoy the movie anyway. Sometimes a movie has some element that makes the overall movie a success. A good example for me was 50 First Dates. I didn't want to like the movie, but somehow I ended up liking it. Alas, this picture did not have this either. The only fun element in this picture was the character of Kohli, comic relief in an otherwise painful movie. But Kohli isn't enough to raise the picture out of the swamp.

Overall: D. Simply awful and quite forgettable. It's a shame really, because obviously Chadha is capable of so much more. Let's allow this picture die a quick death and move on.

A Passage to India (1984)

Underwhelming

[4 January 2005]

Dare I say, the old boy may have been a bit daft on that last one....

After watching Gandhi (comparisons are inevitable), I wanted to sing the praises of British filmmakers telling Indian stories from the rooftops.

Gandhi was absolutely magnificent. Three hours passed while I sat entranced, living in another world. And what I loved even more about the film was that it was told by two white guys, one from ENGLAND (pronounced "irony"), and the other from MICHIGAN of all places! I loved the fact that while India's much-ballyhooed film industry turned out hundreds and hundreds of unwatchable "films", her greatest story was told by the hated invaders themselves. Marvelous.

So I entered A Passage To India with high hopes. And then I waited. And waited. And waited. Three hours of pathetic faces, gazing upon nature stirring their souls.

And Mrs. Moore? I was asleep when she died, having been earlier put to bed by the film itself.

I was embarrassed watching Alec Guiness. When younger I was brainwashed by person or persons unknown into believing he was a Great English Actor, in the Grand Old Tradition. Grand Old Bullshit. Olivier was a Great English Actor. Guiness (in this movie and in Murder By Death, and in Star Wars on general principle) was a Great English Bore.

I should give you more of a review but it's a waste of time. I will however, leave you with a positive: James Fox (Fielding). Great part, and very well acted.

Closer (I) (2004)

Wants to be so much more than it is

[5 December 2004]

*Major League Spoilers - forget about it!*

First: taken as a whole, the movie is pointless. It opens with a shot of Jude Law and Natalie Portman walking towards each other. Ends with a shot of Nat just walking, with no cutting to Jude. This is a common technique that encourages people to think about the character and how he (or in this case, she) has changed, or at least what choices they made and what the consequences of those choices were. OR at the very, VERY least, we are meant to feel empathy for what the character has gone through. I felt none of these things. The movie has a few brutal moments, but never builds on them, instead it meanders through the characters' relationships, often in unmotivated ways, and occasionally in forced ways. It's a shame, because the few moments of brutality (I mean emotionally brutal, not physically brutal) are so promising, so compelling, so powerful, that you WANT the movie to draw you in and show you the awful things people are capable of doing when they are hurt. But instead, it teases us with a few of these moments, then abandons them in favor of long stretches of oh-so-clever dialogue, or arbitrary plot twists.

Ultimately, the film was unsatisfying. It tried my patience several times and in the end did not deliver. Having said that I can report that the performances are fantastic. The film might be a commercial success on the basis of hints of profundity and the performances turned in by the four players.

Clive Owen caught my attention in King Arthur (a movie I disliked), and in this movie he takes it up a notch, exploding onto the screen. He delivers every moment he is on screen. The scene with Natalie in the club is brutal and true. In my opinion, this guy is a star, period.

Natalie Portman is simply stunning. Every time I see her in a movie, she outdoes herself. Just when I think she's going to slip, just when I think she's going to bore me by repeating herself (in terms of repeating a performance from a past role), she reaches down deep and grabs a little bit more of my psyche, and makes me a fan all over again. She sets the bar higher every single time, then catapults over it, leaving me in awe. My high expectations - which I expect to be disappointed are instead surpassed.

I don't like Julia Roberts, but I didn't mind her in this role. I hope she grows up (now that she's a mommy) and starts bringing a serious emotional component to her work.

I don't like Jude Law. Maybe it's just me, but I don't see what the big deal is with this guy. I saw this movie with a friend and he told me Jude Law apparently prefers supporting/ensemble roles. OK, I'll bite. Let's see how he does in the future.

And Mike Nichols..... I don't get it? Why him? Because this a play? I don't get it.

The Shining (1980)

All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy

[26 August 2004]

SPOILERS AHEAD

When Shelly Duvall starts flipping through Jack's work, page after page filled with this line, that is absolutely one of the most horrific moments I've ever experienced in a film. And how is it done? With a bunch of typed pages. No guns, no ghosts, no knives, no blood, nada. Just a bunch of typed pages, were enough to scare the SH*T out of me. And I'm not faint of heart.

I don't universally like Kubrick. I thought EWS was absolutely cold, as well as A Clockwork Orange. Maybe those are great movies, but didn't "reach" me.

OTOH, I loved 2001, as well as The Shining. Looking back at this pic, as well as several other films from the era (all starring some of my favorites like Nicholson, DeNiro, etc.,) it becomes incredibly clear how the mighty have fallen. Twenty years ago they were giving amazing performances. Today they do crap like Meet The Parents or Anger Management. I think the only actor who has generally stayed at the top of his game is Pacino. He seems to have stayed close to his stage roots, and just seems to make great choices and follow up with fine performances.

"Wendy, darling, light of my life, I'm not gonna hurt ya. I'm just gonna bash your brains in. I'm gonna bash 'em the f**k right in."

Defending Your Life (1991)

One of my all-time faves

[20 July 2004]

SPOILERS AHEAD

First of all, I should tell you I completely identified with Daniel. He's as neurotic and insecure as I am.

Great story, true to form. Great acting (I thought Lee Grant was particularly effective, though I am not a fan of Streep's). Though I can see why the film is not more popular: it's a bit cerebral. For me, that is its best quality. It's cerebral without being dry. I was moved, not just at the end, but throughout the film (particularly the scene where Daniel is a child watching his parents arguing).

The ending is "feel good". I usually don't like "feel good" movies, because usually they manipulate our emotions solely for the purpose of delivering a happy ending. But in this case I feel that the ending was completely justified, and made me feel good to boot. I was emotionally invested, and when Daniel joins Julia on the bus, it was very true to the remainder of the story.

The ending summations were great. After watching Torn's I though Daniel was "in". Then after watching Grant's summation, I knew he was in trouble. I thoroughly enjoyed Daniel's summation. He simply said "I'll do the best I can". That is the central message of the movie, and when he delivers it, he doesn't sound preachy or hokey. It comes off as simple, honest, and beautiful.

And it was only after several viewings (and my sister pointing out to me) that I realized that Rip Torn sets up Daniel before he puts him on the bus. He tells him, "just take the opportunities when they come." He doesn't directly tell Daniel to go after Julia, but he's really setting him up.

Finally, the sequence with Buck Henry was brilliant. In that sequence, Grant shows a mis-judgement by Daniel, but that mis-judgement is NOT fear-based, it was just a bad investment decision. Buck Henry does not point this out, and Daniel is feeling so guilty about the whole thing that he doesn't notice it himself. Just brilliant.

I read all the comments that came before mine, and I was amazed to see that there were a couple of negative reviews. I guess that shows you can't please all the people all the time, though I was genuinely surprised.

Capturing the Friedmans (2003)

Weird f***ing family

[15 July 2004]

***POSSIBLE SPOILERS***

As I was watching this, the main thing I was wondering, was why this thing got so much attention? There's nothing new here. We've seen allegations, we've seen perpetrators defending themselves, we've seen victims crying, we've seen police, lawyers, the families, etc. Go watch A&E, Lifetime, or any daytime talk show for 10 minutes.

Why so much attention for this film? I think I have the answer: VOYUERISM. What we have here is actual, real-life tapes of a dysfunctional family cracking under massive pressure. It's reality TV for the new millenium, baby. You can't GET more real. It's a gut-wrenching story, but there is nothing new here.

I think Jarecki deserves contempt for putting this in the public eye. It has no value beyond voyeurism. I think all the critics deserve contempt for praising it so highly. Some of the reviewers say they asked themselves what the point was to the film? Answer: none. These reviewers (including myself) have realized there is absolutely nothing new here. The tapes are real, but watching them is on the same level as watching Geraldo, Jerry Springer, whatever.

REVIEW: I watched this film assuming the pair were guilty (my bias is to assume people are probably guilty when they get caught - I don't live in a courthouse). However, my mind was very much open to the possibility that I was wrong. Honestly, I *wanted* to be wrong. Child abuse is so awful, I never want it to be true, I don't want to have to believe that people can act that way. Call me naive, I can't help it.

Having said that, this is one weird family. The mother seems like the b**ch from hell. Her kids hate her and she has no explanation for it. She hates them back. Second, how can she be married to a child molester for so long without knowing there was something "off" about him?

The father seems so passive, so quiet. The mother and the kids are going at it, and the father just sits there like a rock. Why isn't he defending himself? Why isn't he screaming his innocence from the rooftops? Because he's GUILTY. He's got the mags, he did something with his brother, and god knows what else.

Watching David defend his father - pathetic. At one point the director reads David a statement from his father where the father says he was sexually aroused by boys. David's defense? He protests that "he doesn't even know what that sentence means" Huh? Denial ain't just a river in Egypt. And why would he videotape such painful moments? And KEEP the tapes? What would motivate him to do something like this? What purpose would it serve? Weird.

Based on several inconsistent statements from Jessie, I'd say he's guilty as well, though I have a strong feeling his father molested him, which could be a mitigating factor.

The other brother Seth? Don't know, don't care. Sorry but I was trying to focus on the guilty party. Can't imagine he's 100% normal, though his refusal to participate seems to indicate he wants to distance himself from the entire situation, which seems like the most natural reaction.

A Beautiful Mind (2001)

Absolutely Brilliant

[30 November 2003]

*Minor Spoilers*

I'm an aspiring screenwriter. The key task in writing a screenplay is to try to find a way to demonstrate physically, through worldly events, what is happening to a character emotionally.

I absolutely love movies. I'm an intense person, and movies are a great way for both my intellect and my emotions to be engaged simultaneously. My love of movies has a flipside: I ABHOR badly-written movies. I actually get into a bad mood when I see a bad movie.

This is why I loved _A Beautiful Mind_. From the first moment, the film draws you into its world, until you are completely immersed in its reality, the reality of its characters, setting, and events. Of course, to the audience, the film is a fantasy world that we experience for about two hours.

But what if the character's reality turns out to be false? The audience is in a character's reality, but that reality is a fantasy. In his world, the character must now distinguish between that which is real and that which is fantasy. And the audience must sift through two competing fantasies (the audience's experience of the film being the first fantasy, and the character's fantasy being the second). And the screenwriter (Akiva Goldsman) has to keep all this straight, without being inconsistent, and provide meaning, and do it without being sappy or cliche or predictable.

Goldsman pulls it off in grand style. Every moment is intricately defined to fulfill Goldsman's many competing objectives. And THAT'S what makes this film so powerful.

The fact that this is a true story catapults this film into the truly great. If you don't like it, get off the computer and go watch _The Titanic_ or _Big Momma's House_ again. You probably own them.

The Siege (1998)

Remarkably prescient

[2 August 2003]

When I saw this movie in 1998, it scared me. It felt so real.

After September 11th, I saw it again. My heart stopped.

***some Spoilers***

I've read most of the comments on this film, and also the reviews, and I'm genuinely surprised at how negative people are. People said this movie was over the top, unbelievable, the performances were too dramatic, the events unreal, etc.

And yet, every single thing that happened in the film, happened in real life. In fact, real life surpassed the film. Protecting the Arab population, military at the airports, the FBI's reaction, the loss of retail sales in NYC, the politics, the relationship between the FBI and CIA, the names of the countries they cited that support terrorism.

In the film they bombed a theater. In real life, they took down the World Trade Center.

There are people out there who love to criticize everything Hollywood. But in this case, Hollywood not only predicted reality, it showed us in graphic detail what it would be like. That's what movies are supposed to do: give us an experience in a theater that simulates life in a meaningful way.

In this case, the simulation became reality.

Adaptation. (2002)

Great premise and build up fails in 3rd act

[7 January 2003]

***SPOILERS AHEAD*************

I was very upset by the third act. It left a very poor taste in my mouth. It was cheating. Instead of summoning something from deep inside his soul to create a (possibly) magical third act, Kaufman decides to wuss-out, marked most clearly by the line "We have to kill him." Give me a f***ing break! The first 60-70 minutes of the film were absolutely delightful as Kaufman struggles with himself and his life and the task at hand. I empathized with Kaufman's plight of a nearly impossible task (and not just because I'm an aspiring writer; this type of nearly impossible task is someone everyone can relate to). I enjoyed the scene in the elevator when Kaufman simply cannot talk to Orlean, I enjoyed the McKee scene.

In fact, I am in the process of reading McKee's Story, and I doubt very strongly if he would have sanctioned the third act as it played out on screen. The third act was absolutely disconnected from the first 60-70 minutes of the film and a genuine disappointment.

What should have been a thoroughly satisfying film ended up as bad as any cliche-filled movie I've seen. I realize some people have said that this was their point, to cleverly take off on cliche'd endings. But this is a little too self-congratulatory.

East Is East (1999)

Frustrating

[28 November 2000]

Quite possibly one of the most annoying movies of all time. The characters are little more than caricatures (sp ?), which in itself doesn't have to be a problem, but in this movie it IS a problem because the terribly-written characters are accompanied by a go-nowhere plot, awful dialogue, and ongoing toilet humour (which is woefully out of place).

Next Stop Wonderland (1998)

Very well written and fun

[24 September 2000]

The characters are real. The dialogue is real. The action is smooth, not forced. This is a very well written film. Erin (the female lead) is smart, hip woman who doesn't hate all men, just stupid ones. And there are plenty around.

The male lead is Alan, a sometime-plumber who is going back to school to improve himself, and break away from his family legacy in the process.

There are plenty of clever twists and turns along the way that lead to a very gentle but stirring conclusion.

Look for Holland Taylor (Judge Roberta from _The Practice_) who does a funny turn as Erin's mother. Also, to me, Hope Davis (playing Erin) is a very good actress and should be recognized in the broader film community as such.

Indie's are not always good, but this one is. Happy viewing!