Reviews

6 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
8/10
Great acting and direction, surprisingly good story
31 October 2009
I watched Into Temptation on Netflix's recommendation despite the film's stale-sounding plot outline, primarily because Jeremy Sisto had the lead role. To my surprise, the story turned out to be enveloping and the direction well-paced. Jeremy Sisto was, as expected, excellent: it's not easy to play the role of one Catholic priest and still connect with an audience, what with people bringing well-formed notions about all priests to the table. Rather than shoulder the burden of controversy, Sisto performs Father John Buerlein as a simple, flawed but honest guy. Coyle works in slight transgressions from Buerlein's past and present to help us suspend our cynicism about the church. It works.

Great as Sisto was, Kristin Chenoweth's role was probably the more difficult of the two. The story of her Linda Salerno needed to be told almost exclusively through flashbacks, one confession and a series of ambiguous moments - not many lines to understand, let alone connect with, a troubled and aging high-end prostitute who places absolution high on her checklist of things to do before committing suicide. Chenoweth plain nails it, presents her pain in subtle ways and never tries to be a saint (Sisto's parish, not coincidentally, is a shrine to Mary Magdalene).

Overall, there are some small plot imperfections that acting and direction redeem. It's an excellent film, well-worth the time and money.
32 out of 37 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
The unlikeliest, funniest crowd pleaser ever...
19 August 2006
This movie is hilarious.

Here you have a gay and discredited former college professor who fails at committing suicide, a Nietzsche-reading teen observing a self-imposed vow of silence, a heroin-snorting, smut-loving grandpa, a worn down and stressed out mom, and a motivational speaker who cannot see what everyone else always has - he's a self-delusional idiot. And a little girl who looks up to them.

Sound like a formula for a feel good comedy? Amazingly, it is. In fact, I laughed out loud so many times that by the end I was wiping tears from my eyes.

But this movie surpasses other situational road trip flicks - it gives you lots of twists and fiascos to laugh at, AND offers three-dimensional characters you can relate to and identify with. You end up feeling a part of the clan.

A true achievement of independent film making.
4 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Crash (I) (2004)
9/10
Challenging, abrupt, brilliant
19 June 2005
Last night we saw "Crash," a film written/directed by Paul Haggis that stars Don Cheadle, Matt Dillon, Sandra Bullock, Chris "Ludacris" Bridges and a bunch of other household names. It's an intricate story of seven primary character plots woven together through a series of destructive and life-altering events (think: Robert Altman), set against the din of LA nightlife and sprawl (think: "Collateral"). Using the scene of a car accident from high above on an LA freeway, Haggis thrusts the film's crash metaphor on us from the get-go, and uses his subplots to make a powerful statement about 21st century racism.

Maybe the best thing about Crash isn't its social commentary, but instead the experience of absorbing it. Most movies I've seen about modern bigotry have made their case through purely black and white (think: absolute) characters - halos earnestly hovering about the victims and horns stubbornly fixed atop the perpetrators. And yes, it's usually the white guy conveyed as the brute.

Not the case in Haggis' LA. Each character in Crash exposes something dark about themselves and not one emerges the hero. There isn't really a true-to-form protagonist. Not Cheadle, the LAPD detective or his partner and girlfriend (Jennifer Esposito), not the defiled Thandie Newton or her husband (Terrance Dashon Howard, who delivered a spectacular performance as dressed up, conked, adherent sitcom director), not the feeble Bullock or the hypocritical Ludicrous, and certainly not Dillon. In fact, all are the bad guys along the way. And also the good guys.

And thus the experience of Crash: there are no free rides. Haggis pushes you around the whole time with the ebb and flow of goodness and badness emanating from each character. He destroys any chance of taking sides, and challenges the notion of "sides" to begin with. In doing so, he transmogrifies the shell of political correctness that usually governs films on the topic.

It's a masterpiece. Thicken your skin and go see it.
2 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Kaufman shines
24 April 2004
Considering the high rating this film gets, I'm surprised to see so many gloomy reviews here. I thought the screenwriting, direction and several of the performances were brilliant. Since the presiding dissent is, "I didn't get it," maybe the nay-sayers need to go see it again.

Anyway, 'Eternal' proves again that Kaufman is the master of weaving a story around a central message in a profoundly unconventional way. Acting - overall outstanding. Carrey is fantastic but not slapstick (might this be the reason for the poo-pooing dissent? Perhaps disappointed by a Jim Carrey flick with no facial contortions?), Winslet is better that she's given credit for on this board, Dunst was just good (but my GOD that scene jumping on the bed! Reason enough to see it). I wasn't blown away by Ruffalo like everyone else. Wood seemed uncomfortable playing a mook (or maybe it was just me being uncomfortable watching him play a mook).

Story and screenplay - legendary. One minor hole that I won't get into lest I spoil the end, but overall I can imagine the joyous time Kaufman had writing this one.

Direction - best I've seen this year.

Cinematography - lots of people complained about it, but IMHO added to the disorganization of the plot.

Soundtrack - eh.

Overall - instant classic.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Monster (2003)
Theron's winning transformation
24 January 2004
The big story here is Charlize Theron's transformation from dazzling starlet to damsel in distress. Can the "new" Theron really transcend a clever make-up job (and it IS stunning) to connect with her troubled character and, most importantly, deliver a performance that reflects the complexity and ambiguity of the part?

She can, and she did. Theron's performance is shocking and remarkable. There are many conflicting nuances in her character, and she conveys each beautifully without jamming them down your throat. She frightens, invokes sympathy, commits terrible acts and ultimately makes you pull for her to do the right thing. The Academy typically favors big budget performances in handing out its best acting honors; in this case, at least, their decision will be justified (and Academy, if you're reading this, don't go and screw it up).

The movie is fabulous and powerful. Get a sitter and see it.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
A feast for the pseudo-enlightened?
18 January 2004
The weird dichotomy of reviews here seem to indicate a growing rift between film experts and we dull-minded amateurs. After all, the consensus among film critics and students seems to be that 'Lost' is a masterpiece, but the rest of us either 1) fell asleep, or 2) stayed awake by struggling to figure out the point. In fact, only a handful of the 300+ reviews here say it's just an average movie (the ruling IMDB elite say "Oscar-worthy" and the mindless masses say "booooring"; few fall in or near the middle).

So what? So we read the reviews and expected something uniquely brilliant, forged by a legacy of cinematic greatness. So we were let down and misled.

I really get the feeling - and I'll just say this and shut up already - that the initial round of glorious reviews were hatched from a tiny elitist minority who, like us, struggled unsuccessfully to grasp the point but, unlike us, didn't have the courage to admit it. So instead they glossed over the missing plot and hailed the movie as something high-minded and profound, the vision of a beloved director (whose name they dare not condemn). And so then the oracle was passed to the indie squires that they too would praise this snoozer, lest they too expose their wretched lack of artistic sensibility.

Here's to the brave folks who dared set the record straight on this one. Damn the charlatans! (grins)
15 out of 24 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed