Change Your Image
foxgirl
Reviews
One Hour Photo (2002)
Picture perfect.
The entire time I watched this movie, I felt as though I were looking at an endless series of snapshots. Everything was too perfect and clean, and the colours too crisp and pure, the store too vast and white and gleaming... but not enough to make the surreality of the setting obscure the story. Everything's just this side of reality--just like when, for example, you see the photos of someone that they want to show you, the best ones. None of the ones where their hair is messed-up, their expression silly, their rear shot at an unflattering angle can be found--there's nary a single shot in this masterpiece out of place. As Sy's voice-over says, if you look through a person's photo albums, you might come away with the impression that nothing bad ever happens to them. In addition to including the key colours of photo development and emphasizing Sy's sterile, lonely identity with the whites, beiges and taupes of his environments, we are placed artistically in a world that can only be described as picture-perfect.
I could go on about the cinematography, but that's not all I want to rave about. Robin Williams' performance in Insomnia was like a dress rehearsal for this film--as Sy, he gives us even more of a subtle, spare view into an unstable character's world. With each troubled role he takes on, he performs better and better. True aficionados of character acting will not at all be disappointed by this film... and yes, it sounds strange to me, too, to place Robin Williams in that esteemed acting category. He lives up to the praise he has garnered for this movie, and then some.
**SPOILERS BELOW**
I've read criticisms of the tensions between Mr. and Mrs. Yorkin--they fight over money, but she spends all her time at the discount store, Savmart. I feel that those who espouse this notion are missing some serious subtleties in the Yorkins' relationship--she feels that he has emotionally distanced himself from the family, and he seems to be expressing misplaced frustration with himself and the situation when he argues with her over her spending. Multiple instances in the movie bear out both complaints--we find he is having an affair, and we discover that Mrs. Yorkin has 'some serious shopping to do' during the day at the mall, and is consistently dressed and coiffed like a model, somewhat out of the norm for your average Savmart customer. It's a very realistic fight between a husband and wife about... nothing that they're actually voicing at all.
As to whether or not the nude, posed photos were actually ever taken... well, I, for one, am satisfied to be left without that question being definitively answered. Does it matter? Mr. Yorkin and Maya were both duly humiliated, which was part of the purpose of the exercise. Perhaps it's better if he didn't, if he took pictures of random objects in their room, in his own--it would make us even slightly more sympathetic to Sy. But regardless, the ending makes it fairly clear that whatever the reality of it, Sy was acting against the two of them with, as a previous reviewer so eloquently put it, the worst punishment in his world.
It's a picture... act like you're enjoying it. Act like you're having fun. And at the end of it, you're left feeling guilty and dirty and ashamed and angry... somewhat like the way the movie lets you feel at the end. I can't tell you how much I enjoy movies that really live up to Traffic's tagline--"No one comes away clean." Requiem for a Dream was like that, Traffic itself is like that, and One Hour Photo is certainly like that. I think it's a good thing, having been a retail lackey, to have some people realize what it is like to be looked through, to be looked over. And likewise, it's a good thing for others to realize that beautiful people in perfect homes assure their children and themselves that everyone's fine, they have girlfriends and mommies and daddies who love them. Both sets of people could benefit from a viewing of this film, but no one's going to come away with a good and light-hearted feeling when the credits begin to roll.
I respect that, in a film.
The Forgotten (2004)
Distinctly creepy--despite popular opinion, worth a look!
I'm surprised by the number of negative reviews and complaints of plot holes this film has received--I found it original and well done, in spite of the admittedly pat ending. Before I delve into spoiler-laden territory, let me recommend this film to anyone who wants to see something elegant, creepy and interesting. (If you're seeking lots of fiery explosions, slavering monsters and women with their tops off, look elsewhere.)
**TIME FOR THE SPOILERS, NOW**
Telly (Julianne Moore) lost her nine year old son fourteen months ago in a plane crash, and she is still deep in mourning. The atmospheric eeriness of this tangled little story begins almost immediately--things are not where she left them, she still has the taste of coffee in her mouth and is told she wasn't drinking any. Suddenly all evidence that her son ever existed starts vanishing, and hubby and therapist break the news to her that she's been suffering from paramnesia, imagining nine whole years of being a mother that never happened, a stress reaction to a miscarriage.
She can't accept this news and runs all over town, trying to find people who remember her son. She finds a man whose daughter apparently died on the same flight, and prompts him to remember her, too--the two subsequently join forces on the hunt for the truth of what's happening. I will say it seems somewhat improbably lucky that they keep escaping custody and evading federal agents (of the NSA, no less), but the series of near misses and the lack of police cooperation with the federal investigation make that within the realm of possibility.
The cinematography (blue filter?) is well done--lots of unusual shots from the air, almost piercing down into the buildings where the characters are at points, add a lot... many times, the shots make it seem we are watching through someone else's eyes, peering in through windows and such, and an unsettling feeling of constant observation is definitely intended. See, the children were taken as part of an experiment being run by sinister, extremely powerful aliens. Another reviewer said the movie imparts a feeling that said aliens are always just outside the frame, and I felt much the same... they are meant to seem on the edges of things, whispering and watching. That's not a feeling to be underestimated--this film still has me a bit nervous. (When it's released on DVD, I wouldn't recommend watching it alone at night.)
Anyway, the experiment--it's not actually focused on the children, it is focused on the bond between parent and child, something the aliens are very curious about, and something the specific alien-in-charge is working to prove can be dissolved (for what purpose, we're constantly, obliquely assured we'd rather not know). The NSA is aware of the aliens and their experiments, and 'cooperates' in the sense that humanity is helpless to stop them, regardless. You don't get to see green skin or flapping tentacles--when you do get a glimpse of inhumanity, it's relatively subtle, but extremely terrifying. There are moments in this movie that will make you leap out of your skin, and that is definitely one of them, the alien screaming 'FORGET!' People being sucked up into the sky is also quite a disturbing touch, and one of the few special effects used in a relatively spare film.
On to the ending, and we'll pass a couple of alleged 'plot holes' along the way. First, what's so improbable about the bankruptcy (not IRS seizure, or whatever else was alleged) of the airline? Seems a perfectly legitimate way to tie up that particular aspect of the experiment once its usefulness had expired--companies fold all the time, no one would look askance. I mean, c'mon, -human- intelligence agencies use front companies, too, in much the same manner. Second, Moore's character was never directly harmed while she was part of the experiment BECAUSE she was part of the experiment--I would think that would be pretty obvious, too. She was the mystery element--the one parent whose bond could not be severed, and the whole point was that they wanted to know WHY, and couldn't understand it. Why did they make Telly's husband forget her? Because she was winning allies and convincing people--it was an attempt to further (for want of a better term) alienate her! The aliens aren't portrayed as wanting a nice big spotlight on them, and she was managing to convince strangers in law enforcement that she was telling the truth... given a chance to present her evidence to the man that loved her, that fathered their missing child, she might rack up one more angry, inquisitive believer.
Anyway, the ending--yes, it was a Hollywood ending. Kids playing in the sunshine, Telly the only one who remembers what really happened, everything in its right place. That was, to me, the single major flaw of the whole film, and I wonder if there might not be an alternate ending or two on a cutting room floor somewhere... it's like the ending was tacked on based on suggestions from a (stupid) focus group. I would have been much more satisfied with even an ambiguous ending--it paints a strange happy face on our unseen alien overlords when they give the children back and magically fix everything. It's much, much scarier to imagine that all the aliens, not just the ominous jerk running the experiment, were incapable of fully understanding parental love and even basic human compassion.
(Final note on 'plot holes'--where was Sam's dad at the end? Presumably at work, since Sam asks Telly if he can play 'until 5:30.')
Bandits (2001)
I want those 122 minutes of my life back, please.
You know it's a bad sign when you find yourself wishing, partway through the movie, that you'd brought along a good book to read instead. Perhaps one with a good plot, engaging dialogue and sympathetic characters, as opposed to what you're watching... as was the case with Bandits, for me. If I had been there alone, I would have left before this contrived yawnfest ended, in fact, since watching paint dry would have been more entertaining.
This movie should be held up as evidence for the assertion that film-making is an art, not a simple formula. In Bandits, we have Levinson + Willis + Thornton + Blanchett + potentially interesting plot idea, but it doesn't add up to anything worthwhile, in defiance of expectations. Those are all great people, but they phoned it in this time, and with the script they had to work with, I hardly blame them.
I didn't see these characters as anything but gimmicky, pretty unconvincing caricatures, and watching them bumbling through a stagnant plot was anything but entertaining. I don't think I would see this film again if I were paid to, I'm sorry to say. I have a fine sense of humor, like my comedy dry and black, but I still couldn't find wit in this with an electron microscope.
Hysterical Blindness (2002)
Real and touching.
**PLEASE NOTE: Review contains spoilers!**
Uma Thurman and Gena Rowlands do an outstanding job in this film. Their performances deserve first mention in any review, but certainly the movie has plenty of other good qualities to recommend it.
Set very authentically in the New Jersey of the '80s, it is a short, intimate and rather naked story of women, heartbreak and life... without, thankfully, being a saccharine 'chick flick.' The interplay between the characters is elegant and subtle as the symbolism is brash and heavy-handed, but most of the characters themselves are brash, trashy, vulgar. One can hardly blame the symbolism for matching, and it somehow does seem to perversely fit the setting.
This movie pulls no punches. If you are looking for something lighthearted or affirming, this is not the best choice. If, however, you are seeking something that will move you, something that is at once both extremely familiar (for those of us who recall the '80s, or know New Jersey, particularly) and refreshing in its honest vulnerability, you may enjoy this as much as I did. You may find that the death of one character breaks your heart on behalf of another, or that the final bar scene is difficult to watch in its desperation and rejection.
In the end, the best way I have to describe this movie is by describing a particular scene, and borrowing its sentiments. Ben Gazzara's character, Nicky, is seeing Debby's (Uma Thurman) mother, Virginia (Gena Rowlands). Debby is protective of her mother, whose husband left her when Debby was thirteen--it's been them against the world ever since, one gets the impression. Debby runs into Nicky in the local bar one afternoon, and is persuaded to sit, have a conversation. Nicky, as a character, is almost too kind and patient, overflowing with good qualities in a movie where every other male character seems an antagonist at best, even the ones who never appear. They have a touching conversation wherein he surprises Debby by making a comment about how 'girls like [her]' have to be careful, regarding partying, the bar scene. She asks him what he means, deciding whether or not to take offense... he explains that she has a special quality, just like her mother, that not too many people will be able to see, or appreciate. She seems disarmed, touched. It's a very sweet prelude to the most tragic moment of the film, when Nicky dies before he can take his beloved 'Gin' (Virginia) away to live with him in Florida, to grow old(er) together with a lemon tree in their front yard.
This movie has a special quality, too, and it won't be appreciated by everyone. It was originally an off-Broadway play, and I think that shines through in the brevity of the story arc, the raw intimacy and pain, the concentration on the emotional interplay between the characters. As Nicky goes on to say in the scene I mentioned, you think life can't go on, sometimes, but it always does. It just goes on, and it never stops, and it is both important and difficult to remember that, sometimes. That's what this movie leaves you with, that's this film's version of a happy ending. And it's not happy, not really... but it's real, and there is definitely something to be said for that.
The Last Broadcast (1998)
Chock-Full of Spoilers--Beware!
To begin, let me say that I am not a great fan of The Blair Witch Project. I was, however, impressed by the hype surrounding the supposedly novel and revolutionary execution of that film, and had long been under the surface impression that no movie had before attempted something like that. Granted, there are aspects to BWP's production and post-production that may indeed be revolutionary, but the DVD case to The Last Broadcast isn't lying when it claims credit for BWP's inspiration.
**MAJOR SPOILER ALERT**
The cinematography on this film was on the whole far less annoying than that of BWP, but this is set up as a sort of twisted documentary after the fact. There's some photo-manipulated (watch the behind-the-scenes vignettes!) gore and a graphic asphyxiation scene, but apart from that? It's an old-fashioned spooky little tale of suspense and murder that leaves a lot of questions even after the disturbing last ten minutes.
I can see how some other reviewers came upon this halfway through and presumed it to be an actual documentary. I have seen dozens of shows like this on The Learning Channel, for example, and the execution in this case is excellently faithful. Far from stiff or unnatural, I thought the interviewees were as candid and believable as any I have seen on real documentaries, and their lack of poise only added to that impression. Instead of being an endless pastiche of jumpy video of whiny, scared, lost people, which is, to me, BWP in a nutshell, The Last Broadcast was as much like a cable crime documentary as it could have been, and the fact that film-style plugins were unavailable to its creators earns my admiration... the film-style sequences (particularly the ending) were impeccably hand-altered.
I consulted a number of reviews here on IMDb before watching the film, even if I had rented it on a whim, never having heard of it before. Without reading any spoilers, I got the distinct impression that even many fans of The Last Broadcast quite disliked the novel twist at the end. The fact that the documentary host was actually a calculating murderer was absolutely beautiful. It was a truly Holmesian twist, making the last ten minutes of the movie horrifyingly absorbing. I could not look away--and trust me, the asphyxiation scene certainly made me want to. As the distorted image of the murderer's face began to come into focus via the video restoration, I will admit that I had some inkling as to what the final twist would in fact be. When I saw the caption regarding the agreement between the video restorationist and the documentary maker to contact the authorities AFTER the face had been triumphantly revealed, I was sure. But even seeing things fall into place, I could not help but see them through to the end. In the last few minutes, the movie grabs you, takes your breath away, flees with you deep into the Pine Barrens, and leaves you there, to wonder.
How did Suard die? Why did the documentarian elaborately hoax the delivery of the mangled video? If he didn't, who sent it? If he did, was his own megalomania enough to hire the unfortunate video restorationist? What happened to the body of Avkast? If that body was so well-hidden, why did the murderer fail to at all disguise the location of the other two? Won't any of the interviewees question that the documentary never comes to light? The whole elaborate media-driven point of the documentary itself evaporates when you realize the documentary cannot possibly be shown because of the atrocious murder that occurs at its end. What, then, is the documentarian's eventual fate? I actually half-expected suicide deep within the Barrens, but then where is the triumph of getting away with this inexplicable series of ritualistic murders? I wish we had seen a true motive. For the documentarian to have slain all of them would have required him to either follow the party into the woods or have been in league with Suard, both of which seem weirdly motivated and difficult. Certainly in being sentenced to life imprisonment, Suard would have brought to light a collaborator. If there was no collaboration, was it just simple fury at the crappiness of the Fact or Fiction cable show on the part of the documentarian? ;)
The world may never know. Despite all the questions, all the untied loose ends, the performance of, in particular, the documentarian is truly beautiful. But no one in this does a poor job. This low-budget group of filmmakers and actors is to be commended for what I had previously thought to be the unique vision of the BWP people. It's worth seeing, as long as you are not expecting a creature feature.
I beg to disagree with those who say there is a disappointing lack of monster in the story, however. I think the asphyxiation scene clearly shows a great deal of truly monstrous and inhuman conduct, more than enough to be chilling, even terrifying. And knowing that there are six billion creatures on the surface of the planet that could have that capacity is more than enough fright for me, thanks... much scarier than the demon that supposedly haunts the New Jersey Pine Barrens.