mistereight8888 Reviews

Million Dollar Baby (2004)

Bizarre turn for the unnecessary at the end

[6/10 · 28 December 2004]

Most of the comments about this film on IMDb are extremely laudatory. And until the end of Ms. Swank's last match, this film does measure up to all the plaudits. The movie is serious in tone, but it also has innumerable funny moments, and it looks great. The film is truly magical until...

... until the major twist leading to the end comes, and it comes out of nowhere. That's not automatically a bad thing, but in this case it is. The end isn't organic to what we've witnessed preceding it. My friend said it was manipulative, and I agree.

There didn't seem to be any reason to take us where the beginning took us if we were headed where we ended up. What's the point in going so tragic for no real reason? Yes every acting job was flawless, I'm talking about the story here. It was so very odd where it went because there seemed no justification for it to do so. Happy endings are by no means a requirement for a film, but endings that are somehow the narrative extension of what got us there are, and this is far from that.

It's really darn odd.

Four Weddings and a Funeral (1994)

Not as charming as I remembered

[6 January 2004]

Note: spoilers ahead.

The screenwriter, Richard Curtis, is the deserved king of Brit romantic comedy (deserved based on his films' box office success), so when this came on tv the other night (Jan., 2004), I thought I would watch to see how the master does it. I had remembered thinking when I first saw it that it was an excellent light entertainment that was so tightly and inventively written that it went beyond light into meaningful. But, ten years later, it doesn't hold up so well. Not that it's bad, it's just so slight. I attribute this partly to the structure--it's hard to bring out much character in the three weddings and funeral that occur prior to the finale wedding/denouemont--but mainly I attribute it's slightness to the fact that we don't know much about Andie MacDowell's character... other than she's a bit of a slut. I realize she's written to be mysterious, at least I presume that's what it is, and she plays everything she is given, so my quarrel isn't with her performance, it's just that she goes directly into sex after barely even talking to Hugh Grant, and I mean barely. Yes they meet at the first wedding, and have a few near misses there and one later at their hotel, but then she invites him up for a drinky and immediately they go boom boom. Okay, fine, maybe she's not easy and just had a fling. But then she does it again later, but this time she's engaged! And she's engaged to a guy the movie has shown to be a shallow sot. But we never see any other side of her than the sleep-around, marry-someone-wrong-for-her-side. Other than being charming and lovely, she isn't given anything especially redeeming, or really anything at all, meaning her character isn't just slutty, but deeply shallow. So why care if Hugh Grant ends up with her? What's the big attraction other than her her looks (and her hat)? She's probably very, very good in the sack, but that's not enough to keep us interested as an audience. Overall, her character's lack of depth, at least as she is drawn, is a huge flaw in this movie and prevents it from being anything remotely close to a classic. It's flawed fluff, with good patches of writing and good performances.

Angels in America (2003– )

This is the best screenwriting ever. Seriously.

[5 December 2003]

This is like nothing else anyone has ever done or seen. This is the most original, imaginative, astonishingly good thing I have ever watched, and my favorite movie of all time is Dr. Strangelove, which is a masterpiece. This is an absolute masterpiece. The writing is the star here, but Nichols' production gets every little thing out of the writing, which is saying mountains. It's hard to believe how good the stuff the characters say is. The themes of America, of Aids, of committed love, of Reaganism, of power, of understanding, of politics, of religion (almost above all), of the spirit, make this a Sistine Chapel for the screen; no joke there: this is Michelangelo on his back. And no matter what I say, there is no chance of me overstating the achievement here. Even the stuff that isn't "entertaining," the parts that may not be as good as the other parts, are so unique and original that you can't help wonder why no other writer has ever approached Kushner's level of expression here. That sounds hyperbolic, but wait, just you wait. Warning: do not watch this near a phone, or near young kids, or near anything or anyone that will distract you for the slightest moment. You do not want to miss even one word of these interactions. I mean that literally. Tape it and then watch it alone or with friends in a hermetic environment that you know will not be disturbed. I envy you never having seen this.