Sandcat2004 Reviews

Cold Creek Manor (2003)

Someone, stop Figgis from writing movie scores...

[19 October 2004]

While Cold Creek Manor is fairly pedestrian in its basic elements, there is nothing that sinks it past mediocrity. It is pleasing enough to watch at home on DVD or HBO. There are some absurdities in the dialogue and plot points that seem a little ridiculous, but as long as high expectations are not brought into the viewing of this film, it is a somewhat satisfying experience.

There are only a couple of aspects of this film that are terrible. The inclusion of Stephen Dorf in the cast is frustrating. But I will admit I find Stephen Dorf to be the most irritating actor and I have never found any of his performances tolerable, except his performance in Backbeat. However, my dislike of Dorf is very much based on personal taste and not really on his ability. There are plenty of actors I think are terrible at their craft and I am not irritated by them, unlike Dorf. There are quite a lot of people who seem to feel similarly towards Juliette Lewis, whom I love.

As for a legitimate complaint, the score is awful. Figgis must not be allowed to write his own scores anymore. Although he received a lot of praise for his score in Leaving Las Vegas, all of his scores lack any subtly. Given that I rarely even notice a score of a movie without consciously making an effort to do so, it is very annoying to constantly be thinking "this music is horribly distracting," which happens frequently in films by Mike Figgis. Its one thing to have overblown scores in spectacle movies, like those scored by Elfman, Horner, and Williams, but they aren't distracting because they usually match well with the tones of their respective films. Yet pointing out the poor quality of the score is really quibbling over nothing when Cold Creek Manor is just a middle-of-the-road film.

What Lies Beneath (2000)

Ebert and Roeper are sorely misguided with their dislike for this film...

[9/10 · 7 August 2004]

It is interesting to revisit the archived reviews available at EbertandRoeper.tv and listen to their comments regarding this film and their perception of its ability to frighten, its technical construction, and its characters' success in aiding the narrative. Each of the respective critics dislike What Lies Beneath in both its construction (camerawork and plot development) and its effectiveness in creating suspense. While this movie is enjoyable regardless of whether it was viewed on opening weekend or whether it is the third or fourth viewing on television, it is more understandable that Ebert and Roeper had some issues with the film during its theatrical release (whether they have altered their views upon its DVD release, I do not know). The true beauty of this film is the manner in which it holds up over time and how it DOES splice all of the great filmmaking techniques together into a nice homage to classic suspense films.

The plot, including the incremental revelations of paranormal activities within the newly gone-off-to-college childless home of Pfeiffer and Ford, is not really what drives this movie. Ebert and Roeper complained in their critiques that there are too many red herrings that serve no purpose but to mislead the audience; thus, when they are exposed as mere ruses, much of their existence within the film is superfluous. But that is the fun of the movie. That is the fun of many classic suspense films, even numerous Hitchcock films. There are situations that are added because they lend a hand in the build-up fear, not the characters' fears, but the viewers' fears. In Psycho, the image of the cop's face outside Leigh's car window, masked by sunglasses, expressionless, and looming over the camera is scary to viewers. Yes it fits into the script because she is frightened as a result of her thievery. But ultimately, it is the viewers' own fear of cops' intimidation tactics that makes the scene effective. In What Lies Beneath, hearing cries of distress through a fence that offers no real visibility of the cause of such pangs is very similar. Who cares if it is mainly a device to build uneasiness?

To be fair, Ebert and Roeper really seemed more irritated that too much of the plot and its elements of mystery were revealed in the marketing of the film . The true cause of the haunting that Pfeiffer's characters is terrorized by was apparently revealed rather blatantly in the trailers and television spots used to promote the film. Therefore, Ebert and Roeper seemed more angry that they were not even given the chance to enjoy the unfolding of the plot and the subsequent suspense. However, it is only know that their argument seems to be more fallacious in its use of logic. I understand that each person has a reaction to a film based on the uniqueness of their own likes, dislikes, and inclinations to genre, but there is an established set of framing techniques, camera movements, and lighting designs that reliably cause an emotional reaction by the viewers. It is very hard to find Ebert and Roeper's critiques impervious to default when this film does not tend to lose much of its emotional effects upon repeat viewings.

To elaborate, the unknown ghost, its motivation, and its history and relevance to Claire (Pfieffer) are plot points for the basic construction of a three act narrative; and, a three act narrative is a contrivance proved to be effective for the assimilation of information by means of tapping into the inherent way humans use logic to invent concepts from raw data (if a, then b, and if b, then c: therefore if a, then c). Subsequently, the artist now has a template on which to attach the expressions of humanity that create the emotional impact of the film (or play, etc.). In a sense, the structure of What Lies Beneath is very simple and only attempts to create a large enough template to succeed in allowing the viewer to follow the basic arc of the narrative. The strength of the film exists in the the technical construction and how precisely orchestrated it is to get the most emotional impact from the various moments in the film. Watching the film for the third or fourth time, the plot isn't new or exciting, the characters aren't complex, yet the film is still suspenseful. It is not the unfolding of the story creating all the suspense; rather, it is Zemeckis's camera use, his choices for sound and light design, and his ability to precisely coordinate a myriad of elements that enables the film to work as a whole. This is not a film that would survive on its script. This is not a film that would survive by its stars alone. This film succeeds because of the choices in direction.

Finally, to counter Ebert and Roeper's unsound critiques of this film, attention should be paid to their mention of films that they found parallel to What Lies Beneath, whether thematic or visually reminiscent in some way. Roeper states that the movie has too many cliches and that the ending is reminiscent of Carrie, Cape Fear, and even Gone with the Wind. On the other side of the aisle, Ebert compares the film to Ghostbusters because of moments he found comedic that were not intended to be so (although I don't find any scene unintentionally comedic). The odd aspect of their critiques is the absence of any mention of the numerous shots Zemeckis directly lifted from several of Welles' films and a litany of shot selections that pay homage to Hitchcock. While this movie isn't groundbreaking, it is a great exercise in technique that results in a fun, effective film.

She-Devil (1989)

Not enough praise was given to this little gem...

[8/10 · 6 August 2004]

I will admit from the outset that I have a soft spot for the trio of Seidelman films made in the mid-80's and early 90's-- Desperately Seeking Susan, Making Mr. Right, and this film. There is something playful and quite outrageous about all three of the aforementioned movies with She Devil being the funniest due to great performances by the entire cast, even Roseanne Barr. Although this movie was disregarded by most critics and ignored at the box office, it is truly a funny film with its cartoon-like situations and over-the-top characters. Regardless of what everyone says, check out this film, especially when you find yourself in the mood for a cute and campy movie that is reminiscent of some of the great comedies of the 80's, such as Ruthless People.

Girl with a Pearl Earring (2003)

All oysters should be lucky enough to contain this film's beauty...

[9/10 · 2 February 2004]

I went to this film solely because of its multiple Oscar nominations. Because of the hectic time of year (in my schedule) and the numerous critically praised films out in the marketplace now, this normally would fall under my "Sundance

Channel viewing" cache of films. I am very glad I saw this in the theatre simply because of its visuals. Out of all the nominees in the cinematography category, this stands out with great aplomb. Given the beautiful lighting by Boyd in

"Master and Commander" and some of the interesting camera use in "City of

God," it is no small feat for "Girl with a Pearl Earing" to outclass its fellow nominees. The film is so lush and really took me by surprise. I assume that many of the shots are recreations of paintings from the era (at times I felt as if I were strolling through a gallery), and this aspect only heightens the film as a whole.

Everything in this movie works extremely well. The story, although not speedy in its development, is very well constructed; and, the acting is superb all around (Johannsen is one of the few actresses of her generation that can draw you in just through the emotion expressed in her face). Colin Firth and Tom Wilkison are both solid in their respective roles, and the other cast members flesh out this wonderful little gem.

Yet the strongest aspect of this film is its visual beauty (not that any aspect of this film is not well executed). This film deserves to win Best Cinematography, but then again, another film with Miss Scarlet lost out its deserved cinematography Oscar (Roger Deakins's wonderful work in "The Man Who Wasn't There"). The

costumes and art direction are also dazzling (not shockingly also recognized in their respective Academy Award categories). Although I don't think "Pearl" has a chance in the latter categories with both "Lord of the Rings" and "The Last Samurai" nominated in each, hopefully it will take home a statuette for

cinematography.

Definitely worth checking out in the theatre if you get a chance; otherwise, this is a great movie that should be viewed on The Sundance Channel or DVD if you

don't get a chance to see it in the theatre.

K-19: The Widowmaker (2002)

You'll wish you would die and leave a widow.

[16 January 2004]

This movies is seriously one of the worst movies of its genre. It is not because the subject matter is depressing and unappealing, which it is. But rather, it is so boring and and terribly acted all around (Liam Neeson is the only one that is even watchable). The idea of Harrison Ford as a Russian is so ludicrous. It is not because of his horrible accent, but rather his star quality (i.e. star persona) does not let him become the role.

There have been some comparisons in early comments about this being similar to "Das Boot" and "Run Silent, Run Deep," but those comments are so of the mark it is scary. The film is filmed so poorly and the cinematography is flat and has not depth of field, nor is there an sense of claustrophobia. "Das Boot" was the master of submarine suspense simply due to its shot selection. "U-571," although a popcorn flick was much more emotional than this cold fish. Oddly the film is so empty of emotion when the entire movie revolves around tragedy (This is not a spoiler).

I am shocked at how poorly Katheryn Bigelow directed this film. She normally has the ability to create visually stimulating films, even if they aren't the greatest. "Strange Days" had some beautiful moments, although the script was a mess and there was no mystery to the the actual plot. "Near Dark" was campy but quite beautiful. And, although her film "The Weight of Water" was derided by critics, the scenes with Sarah Polley were fantastic and wonderfully shot, including some really great handheld camera work. Of course, everyone say that her handheld chase scene in "Point Break" is one of the best shots she has ever composed, but I disagree.

If you want to check out a Bigelow film, look for the gem "Blue Steel" with Jamie Lee Curtis, Ron Silver, and a nice small role by Louise Fletcher. There are some gorgeous shots in it the and some of the lighting is quite nice, if nit a little too much use of blue filters. Although, I do think the storyline is a little cliched at times. But then again, I am not really a fan of Ron Silver. He has his moments, but seems wrong for that part. He doesn't have the ability to match up to Curtis's -masculinity- if that is what it is.

Well, in terms of "K-19: Widowmaker," I place the blame squarely on Bigelow. The idea isn't awful; the notion of tragic dilemmas faced by authoritative figures and how to deal with them psychologically is in interesting concept. But the movie fails so miserably. There are way too many dramatic scenes of Ford contemplating the submarine's problematic scenarios. Additionally, some of the lighting, specifically the scenes filmed with an overbearing red, is so dull and washes out the actors' faces. The rest of the film is brown and and devoid of all color. Not that there should be a myriad of color filling the screen. But color, even in small doses, is important to the psychologically of a film SPOILER (the ice scenes are the only semi-beautiful shots). I don't mean that bright colors should be employed gratuitously. A great use of muted colors, specifically grey, as in the Untouchables, are quite beautiful, but that is usually falls to the art direction, costumes, and DP. Unfortunately, all colors in "Widowmaker" are one color (e.g. blue, red, white), and use lighting and filters poorly for the effect they are trying to convey.

Well, as you can tell, I think this movie deserves all the the bad reviews it received. There are a lot of submarine movies out there that are very good, or at least competent (e.g. "The Abyss," although not really a true submarine movie; "Innerspace," Dennis Quaid was in a type of submarine-- I know it's a stretch; of course there are the standards: "U-571," "Das Boo," and "Crimson Tide," all of which use colors effectively and and have a great sense of camera movement and composition; finally, the best submarine movie ever made (well maybe "Das Boot" takes that honor) is "Below," and amazing David Twohy movie, co-written by Darren Arronofsky).

In conclusion, avoid "K-19" unless you want to sleep or make fun of some of the worst shots ever employed in a large budget film. Hell, even though people seem to hate "Waterworld," although I quite like it for its "Road Warrior" quality, you have to admit that Dean Semler has some of the most beautiful compositions in that film. Or maybe they are Reynolds, or Costners....who knows with that troubled film.

AVOID "K19: WIDOWMAKER" AT ALL COSTS, UNLESS YOU WANT TO BE REMINDED OF A BAD A 80'S MOVIE, LIKE THAT ONE WHERE KANSAS (OR SOME MIDDLE OF THE US STATE) WAS ATTACKED BY A THE RUSSIANS. THIS MOVIE IS RIGHT UP THERE WITH THE "RUSSIA HOUSE," NOT A HORRIBLE CONCEPT, JUST THE WORST PRODUCTION I HAVE SEEN IN A LONG TIME. AT LEAST YOU CAN LAUGH AT "SHOWGIRLS," AND AT LEAST "A LIFE LESS ORDINARY" WAS SO BAD THAT AND WEIRD THAT YOU DON'T FORGET IT. THERE ARE STILL IMAGES I CAN'T SHAKE FROM MY HEAD, AS HARD AS I TRY. NOT THAT THOSE MOVIES HAVE ANY CONNECTION TO "K-19." I JUST THOUGHT I WOULD ILLUMINATE MY TASTES IN CASE SOMEONE MIGHT ENJOY MOVIES THAT I FIND ATROCIOUS.

Well....I guess this was another morning diatribe. I am not sure anyone reads these. Yet writing is terribly interesting and especially when you get to realize the amount of money that is wasted on a film (what happened to Ford? "What Lies Beneath" was such a great movie that borrowed so many beautiful shots from Hitchcock and Welles). But you have to take the good with the bad.

"Master and Commander" was worth every penny they spent. If only there were going to be a sequel based on one of the other books, but I don't see the financial possibility given its current gross. It is never good to say "never" though.

Well.... I am going to stop writing just because I want to stop annoying anyone who put up with reading this unimportant crap; and, I have to say, it is only my two cents. Maybe I should have bought a gumball with my two cents instead of venting. Cherry is the tastiest gumball. Otherwise, if they don't have cherry, I think I will opt for raspberry. Oh decisions. Wow, I need to get a grip. Just a reminder, DON"T SEE "K-19" UNLESS YOU WATCH EVERY MOVIE FOR ACADEMIC PURPOSES AND TRY TO DISSECT WHAT MAKES MOVIES GREAT OR, IN THIS CASE, A FAILURE.

DIATRIBE MAN (SANDCAT2004)

It Takes Two (1995)

On second viewing it still pleases

[16 January 2004]

When I used to live in LA in 1995 I went and saw this movie in the theatre. Now, given I was 19 years old at the time (and a guy), it seemed a little odd that I would go see this. Of course, that year I saw so many movies that it bordered on the ridiculous. Although Kirstey Alley has had a spotty movie career, I still like her (remember the ridiculous "Madhouse" with John Laroquette?). I have never liked the Olsen twins. I find them almost creepily unattractive and hammy in terms of their acting (this is prior to their growing into pin-up model).

Anyhow. When I saw this at the Hollywood Galaxy I was surprised how well

done it was for its genre that relies on heavy-handed cliches. Granted, there are so many standard scenes that have been recycled over and over again. Yet, so many films are like that and that should not negate them from becoming

effective viewing experiences. Alley and Guttenberg are quite believable in

their chemistry, and shocking the Olsen twins are cute (even if they have poor delivery in much of their dialogue). This movie is not groundbreaking, but for its use of conventions it works quite well. Even if you are not a family man/women there is enjoyment in this film.

Although the comparison to "Home Alone" is a credibility stretch, it is satisfying if you like that film. I was not sure who directed it until I looked it up and realized it was an Andy Tenant film. He is not necessarily an auteur director, but has had some nice moments in some of his films (which the exception of the

disappointing "Anna and the King;" is it possible to have chosen a less suited director for that film-- Jodie what were you thinking?)

Tonight I saw that "It Takes Two" was on HBO Family and decided to watch it. I thought it would be background noise while I did other chores, but I was

surprised to find myself drawn into the film. Everything I enjoyed about it the first time I saw it over ten years ago worked just as well, and sometimes better. Don't discount this film because of the cast, premise, or even a dislike for Tenant. It is a cute movie that is filled with cheesy charm, cliched scenes, but they all work.

I am shocked, especially given the tightness of the film, that it didn't do too well. It wasn't a flop, but it seems like it should have launched a feature film career for the Olsen twins; instead, they made their fortune on those awful direct to video sleuth films, and eventually tropical locale movies showing off their budding sex appeal (which I don't really get-- but being gay I guess that negates my lustful desires).

Bottom line: See this film if you want some nice cheesy fun and don't mind

family films. It is a good break from watching "Blade Runner," "Punch Drunk

Love," and "Gattaca."

8 out of 10n (for the genre....not comparatively speaking with great filmmaking).

Thanks for reading the longest, most winded commentary on a simple film that

will soon be forgotten in the years to come, unless the Olsen's have a film boom with "New York Minute."

Note: Non-sequitor.... Watch "Idle Hands" with Devon Sawa and "The Hidden,"

a great 80's cop-hunting alien movie with Kyle MacLaughlan.

Take care...... blah blah blah Also: Since "Master and Commander" is not

really doing well in regards to its cost.... go see it. It is one of the best films of the year (Peter Weir's triumph).... "21 Grams" and "In America" are also good. If you like unique unique narrative structures not centered around drama and plots

points, "The Company," Altman's latest is also beautiful.

Long-winded guy is now done.... :P

Big Fish (2003)

Cold Fish

[9 January 2004]

Surprisingly, Tim Burton's new film is quite lifeless outside of its breathtaking visuals. There are moments when the movie is sugar sweet in its attempt to

depict the fantastic world of Edward Bloom, but the eye candy doesn't seem to have a lot of emotional depth (although it strains as hard as it can). The toggling of the narrative between Bloom's older self (Finney), who is disconnected from his grown son (Crudup), and his adventurous younger self (McGregor) is

uneven and tries so hard to form an emotional experience, but ultimately is so thin that there is no great payoff. It is odd that Burton does not succeed where his film "Edward Scissorhands" did. They similarly rely on elements of fantasy and reality cross-pollinating.

The biggest fault lies in the miscasting of McGregor, who labors with his

Southern accent and never seems at home in any part of the film. McGregor,

who has had some brilliant performances in his past, most recently in "Young

Adam," is unable to be effective in his role. Miscasting plagues several other areas of the film, Helena Bonham Carter being the most glaring. Yet, there are some very nice moments by Allison Lohman, Billy Crudup, and the actress that

plays Crudup's wife. Finney has been better in a myriad of films, "The Browning Version" being one of his overlooked gems, and Jessica Lange has no

character to sink her teeth into and is quite wasted in this film.

Of course the film is littered with outrageous characters: Danny Devito's

carnivale ringmaster, Carl the friendly giant, and Steve Buscemi's poet laureate (sp?) to name a few. And while there are warm moments for each of these

characters to show their eccentricities, they don't add up to a very involving movie. Given all the praise this movie is getting, it seems odd that it seems hollow. Instead of ingesting this confection, it is well advised to watch

Zemeckis's "Forrest Gump," Burton's "Edward Scissorhands," or even Burton's

"Pee Wee's Big Adventure."

Although I will note that several people I have talked to vehemently disagree with my reaction. It seems to be one of those movies that affects people or

leaves them unsatisfied... or even dissatisfied. I fall into the latter camp and warn others that the gooey praise heaped on this film is unjustified. I have a feeling that Burton has followed the pattern of many 70's directors who had a decade or so worth of great product in them but faded into mediocrity (Coppola, Cimino, Raefelson, Friedkin, Lumet, De Palma, etc.).

Ed's Next Move (1996)

simple and rewarding

[6 January 2004]

For those who have commented that everything in this movie has been done

before, so what? The performances by the leads are quite charming and

effective. The movie is simple with little added to the genre, but what it does employ is rewarding to the viewer. The idea of Ed's fish-out-of-water situation is not overdone or used as a crutch. Instead, there are only minimal exaggerated comic moments of stereotypical New York moments. This movie, which I had

never really heard of, is sweet and filled with endearing characters involved in everyday circumstances.

I knew Matthew Ross looked familiar, and upon glancing at his filmography I

was surprised at how many smarmy characters he has played (usually a little

over the top). He is very charismatic and has a nice naive quality. The lead actress, who looks like Annabelle Sciorra's (sp?) relative, is also very likable and has a nice chemistry with Ross. I was very surprised at how enjoyable this film was. There is not a whole lot to the film, but it is very emotionally rewarding and worth checking out.

The Company (2003)

Actually made me want to go see a ballet performance

[2 January 2004]

I have seen a handful of ballet performances over the last twenty years (maybe five or so... several of which were versions of The Nutcracker), and those

experiences have left me phobic of ever seeing ballet again. Maybe that is not a fair way to judge whether or not I would ever enjoy ballet, but I have never been very intrigued by dance.

In Altman's "The Company," although a film I assume will have a myriad of

detractors, I was completely mesmerized by some of the dancing, actually

having me second-guessing my phobia (only the last dance number reaffirmed

by disinterest in ballet). Like many others on this site, I will warn potential viewers that there is a distinct lack of dialogue and dramatic plot, but I it works quite well. Although I know Altman is a much better director than Hytner, I was expecting something more along the line of Center Stage. Of course there are the obligatory elements involving dancers/performers and the life they lead (e.g. money struggles, parental pressures/involvement, ego-driven instructors), but they seem much more natural in this film as compared with any other films

dealing with dancers, actors, and performers in general. Ultimately we are a little detached from our emotions as the film unfolds, but there is lyrical beauty to the routine of the dancers.

This is not Altman's best film by far, but it is quite interesting and beautiful in a simple way. If spending 10 dollars on a film with no emotional manipulation

(except for a few of the haunting dance sequences) or conventional storytelling is too much for you, this is not your film. But "The Company" is quite a steal in comparison with what a real ballet performance would cost (I assume ballet

runs 50-150 dollars like theatre does). It is quite a beautiful movie, and contrary to others that have posted, it is not boring or dull.

The Milagro Beanfield War (1988)

The lost Redford film...

[8/10 · 2 December 2003]

Although I have not seen this film for over a decade, it still resonates in my memory. Given the success of all Redford's other directing projects (yes, I know that The Legend of Bagger Vance did not perform well at the box office relative to the marketing and stars involved, but it was quite a good film-- despite the mediocre reviews), it always astounded me that The Milagro Beanfield War gets little mention even in the recapping of Redford's career. Redford's other three films not aforementioned, Ordinary People, A River Runs Through It, and Quiz

Show, all were critical darlings and each received nominations at the Academy Awards. I know that The Milagro Beanfield War won for its score, but that was its lone nomination.

The film is somewhat obscure relative to its storyline. Yet, there is quite a magical quality to the manner in which the narrative unfolds. It most closely resembles The Legend of Bagger Vance in regards to its tone (not necessarily

its social commentary though). I am constantly surprised that this film is not shown on cable, both basic cable and subscription movie channels. Although

its impact on the viewer is not nearly as emotionally intimate as Ordinary

People, it is almost as good, a little better if you consider the uniqueness of the story. It is far superior in comparison to A River Runs Through It, especially given that A River Runs Through It has serious problems with Craig Scheffer's perfomance and the horrible casting of Emily Lloyd. Of course, I find A River Runs Through It almost unwatchable, with the exception of the beautiful Oscar- winning cinematography by Rousselot, one of the best cinematographers

working today (He has outclassed many of his peers in a variety of films: We're No Angels; Dangerous Liasons; Interview With a Vampire; Mary Reilly; and

Flesh and Bone).

I know very few people who have seen this film and I always try to persuade

them to search it out at their local DVD/video store. If you have not seen this film, check it out. It is not a masterpiece, but Redford is one of the most

consistent filmmakers (in his role as director, not as an actor).

In America (2002)

Read this if you believe the few negative reviews regarding this film...

[10/10 · 28 November 2003]

I would just like to make some comments in response to some of the film's

detractors. Although some of the reviews regarding the sentimentality of this film have painted the work as over dramatic, it is structured in such a way that it works perfectly. The film aims to pull at the heartstrings. The film is effective in this endeavor because it does, from the outset, alert the viewer that the narrative is told through a child's point of view. Ironically, the film is not about the children as much as it is about the father. The film is meant to move the viewers, and it does not hide this fact. It is told with a sense of magical wonderment and fairly tale quality. But after all, this is told through the eyes of a child. Surprisingly, it comes as close as possible to the boundary that separates effective emotional manipulation from sappiness without crossing into the latter category

On a personal note. It has been three or four years since I have cried in

response to events in my own life. Thus, I do like movies that are smart enough to affect me without my machismo or cynical defense mechanisms getting in the way. This movie is one of the few movies I have seen that has induced fully

formed tears (not just a slight wetness to the eyes). Last year's "The Pianist," "Good Will Hunting," and "Field of Dreams" are the only other films that have made me cry.

As for some of the criticism noting that New York is not portrayed in a well- defined light, I disagree. Yes, New York is depicted in a glossy, fantastical manner, but that is appropriate for the way the story is told. Again, I refer to the fact that the story is told through the eyes of a child.

This movie is one of the most well-crafted films of the year. A feat much more impressive given how difficult it is to correctly pull off a storyline of this sort. I was shocked how much I appreciated this film. I have liked all of Sheridan's films, but they are not meant to affect the audience in the same manner. This film is blatantly trying to capture the visceral emotional experience of the

characters and avoids the strong socio-political undertones of Sheridan's other works. I don't even see this film as commenting on the experience of immigrants because it is so focused on the way in which this family is coping with the loss of a child. The ways in which the theme of environmental change are threaded

into the script always parallel and strengthen the driving theme of grief and the psychological ramifications that result. If you are looking for well-known films that aim to tell what it is like to be an immigrant by means of an emotionally involving story, watch "Avalon" and "The Godfather Part II."

I seldom recommend films to everyone-- I usually only make recommendations

that are qualified (i.e. This film is a good experience for those who enjoy film A, film B, and film C). Yet, in this instance, I strongly urge everyone to go to this film. The only films I have seen in the last several years that I would tell everyone to go see without qualification would be "The Shawshank

Redemption" and "L.A. Confidential." I am not saying "In America" is one of the top five films I have ever seen, but it is masterfully made and accessible to all.

Blade Runner (1982)

A requirement (a canonical work)

[10/10 · 28 November 2003]

Simply stated, this is necessary viewing for everyone. However, I do not believe that it has universal appeal. Just as there is a literary canon, cinema has its own canonical works. "Blade Runner" should, regardless of personal opinion, be

included in the canon of cinematic works. It is Ridley Scott's best work (although Alien isn't far behind). Every aspect of the film is executed beautifully: the production design outranks almost all sci-fi film; Cronenweth's cinematography has such great depth of field, utilizes light and shadows effectively, and subtly employs colors as markers; the matte painting and special effects outclass many of today's movies; and, the music is extremely appropriate. Given that Phillip K. Dick's novella, "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?," is a poorly executed

piece of writing, the script is great model of a plot structure stripped of

superfluous dialogue and exposition. It is truly a masterpiece.

There are a number of films that are regarded to be within the traditional canon of cinema. Many of them do not appeal to everyone. Similarly, many works of literature do not suit the general taste of the public, but that does not mean that they should not be read by everyone. Of course, our society does not promote the importance of being well-read. Films on the other hand are more accessible to the general public relative to time commitment, education level, and

applicability to social gatherings . Just as people should expose themselves to the canonical works of literature, they should also expose themselves to the

canonical works of the cinema.

If you don't like (or don't think you like) the genre of sci-fi, you should still watch this film. Just as the canonical works of the earlier periods of cinema(Citizen Kane, Capra films, On the Waterfront, 2001, Rebel Without a Cause, The

Graduate, Casablanca, Hitchcock films, etc,) are introduced to new generations, Blade Runner must be included within this framework.

Revolution OS (2001)

I know nothing about computers (and if you don't either, this film is very interesting)

[7/10 · 24 November 2003]

Given that I have no knowledge about computers nor how they operate, I found

this film very informative with some basic descriptions of the free software and open source movement (which have some ideological differences... not that I

had ever heard of either). The film recounts the historical evolution (and

subsequent "revolution") through a series of interviews of key players in the development of the Linux operating systems for computers. If you know nothing about computers, do not assume that you will find this film uninteresting. In fact, although dense with information, the narrative is straight forward and almost all the information is explained for the ignorant like myself.

There are some relatively small problems with the film, mainly near its

conclusion. The finale of the film does not address the disparity between the commercial aspects of open source in the 90's and the long-term growth of the philosophy and practical applications. I assume that the Linux OS and the idea of open source did not lose steam after the dot-com stock bubble burst. Given I don't work around computers, besides for internet research and writing, I must make that assumption. Yet the film implies, for those of us who are ignorant, that perhaps it was derailed by the economic problems. But given the stable

foundation of the idea that the film describes, I cannot imagine that commercial problems would have a long-term affect.

The film ultimately is a nicely constructed lesson for those of us out of the loop. I recommend it to anyone who is interested in watching documentaries or

learning interesting kernels about our world. In terms of emotional involvement, the way the director juxtaposes the interviewees creates interesting moments of humor (there seems to be a jockeying for credit happening within the community of programmers). Where the credit belongs and how people have used this

ideology (which it is according to one of the founders of GNU-- see the movie, it will all be explained) to launch practical business operations creates a nice tension. Of course, there are some mentions of Microsoft's relationship, which is adversarial, to the Linux OS that can help the laymen get emotionally involved in the story by means of creating a hero (the Open Source community) and a

villain (Microsoft). Of course the Microsoft way of business (proprietary rights) is never really given voice with the exception involving an over-dramatized

reading of argumentative letter written in the 70's by Bill Gates (given I am originally from Seattle and some of my friends work for the giant, it seems a little one-sided).

Again, if you have no knowledge of computers, do not avoid this film for that reason alone. If you are on this site, you have an interest in films. You can at least appreciate it as a nicely constructed documentary (although not excellent) that will illuminate a part of recent history.

A small note: although there are some mannerisms of the interviewees that can be regarded as stereotypical regarding computer enthusiasts, they are some of the more well-spoken interviewees I have seen in film in awhile.

Mac and Me (1988)

Odd

[20 November 2003]

While most of the comments made by other viewers deriding this movie are

accurate, does it really matter? It is just a very poorly made film. There is no more product placement than seen in many other films, but it is so poorly

integrated I can understand why people see it as obnoxious. The rest of the film is disjointed and many scenes are superfluous, but there are plenty of movies aimed at the family market that are just as objectionable. I enjoyed watching it on cable last night for the first time (if only to laugh at it), but I can see why kids may have enjoyed it. I remember when it was theatrically released during my

childhood. Yet even at that time it looked ridiculous, lacking the camp appeal it has now.

To respond to some of the site users who mentioned Alan Silvestri's score as

being well done. He is not a bad composer, but he blatantly rips off a lot of his own work (or recycles it), such as his most impressive score (Back to the

Future). Not to mention, he rips off bits from Jerry Goldsmith's score to Gremlins (Gizmo's accompanying whistling noises now provided by Mac). This proves

how little originality existed anywhere in this film.

I will agree with everyone that the aliens are awful looking: they are creepy, funny, and altogether unpleasant to see onscreen (even in clothing at the end of the film). As for the dance number, though it was ridiculous, the dancers were better than the majority of the actors in the film.

Small note: It seemed a little odd that the doctor pulled out a half-used bottle of sedatives from his pocket and gave one to the lead character after the ravine incident.

Carnivàle (2003–2005)

Grows on you- but mediocre for HBO

[11 November 2003]

Carnivale has progressed slowly since its debut in September. What started out as a poorly executed depiction of good and evil has grown into a solid, but not spectacular, series. The notion of tracking a group of carnies traveling the country during the Great Depression (intercut with a storyline involving a

Catholic priest) is an interesting one. Although the idea of regular schmoes with great powers is nothing new, the setting and cast members make this show, if

nothing else, intriguing.

The first several episodes of the season were not as satisfying as the marketing campaign would of had you believe. But as the season has progressed and the

characters have had a chance to develop, the show has built steam. Nick Stahl (best known for his recent roles in T3 and In the Bedroom, but his smaller roles in unknown films following his debut in The Man Without a Face show more of

his range) plays withdrawn Ben Hawkins. He is adequate, as is Clea Duvall.

Yet it is Clancy Brown (who was wonderful in The Shawshank Redemption) and

Amy Madigan that shine the brightest in the cast. The myriad of characters that populate this series are high in number so the character development takes

several episodes to solidify. The characters are exposed slowly as a means to heighten the mystery surrounding the plot, but that restraint is taken too far in the first three episodes.

As for the plot, there is never an urgency to know what is going to happen. I do enjoy that not a lot is exposed about Hawkins's and Brother Justin's powers in the first half of the season, but the montages of eery images in Hawkins's

dreams are a little cliched and seem to be trying to hard to be enigmatic. Given that the foundation of this story is nothing new (familiar to most in Stephen King's The Stand, but executed more effectively in Robert R. McCammon's

Swan Song), the series relies on the evolution of Hawkins's and Justin's self- discovery and the role they will play in the inevitable conflict they will have with one another.

I cannot say the series is bad, but given how far HBO has set the bar (Curb Your Enthusiam, Six Feet Under, Sex and the City, The Ali G Show, The Sopranos,

Oz), it had some big shoes to fill, and it falls a little short. Hopefully they will work on the lighting in the show. Many of the shows are underlit, even for the low key effect they employ, and render the image flat and hazy. At least the show has slowly improved giving me more of a reason to follow it each week. If you haven't seen it, it is interesting, but nothing that you must see.

Love Actually (2003)

Welcome to "Mastercard: Priceless-- The Movie"

[4/10 · 10 November 2003]

I am not sure if I went into this movie with expectations of a formula movie (such as Curtis's well-known writing efforts: Four Weddings and a Funeral; Bridget

Jones's Diary; Notting Hill), but it disappointed me none the less. Although the cast is packed with thespians that have turned out regularly impressive

performances, none of them is given a chance to explore any depth within their characters. Instead, the viewer is expected to watch poorly paced vignettes that never ad up to anything more than cute moments inspired by the universal

Christmas emotions of love and goodwill.

The largest problem of the film lies with its inability to settle down and let the beats of a scene unfold naturally. The first fifteen or twenty minutes of the film is so frenetically edited, jumping among the myriad of storylines, that the viewer is exposed to the most rudimentary aspects of each character (each scene relies

heavily on reaction shots, clever narrative jokes, witty dialogue lacking

emotional subtext, and a memorable physical comedy setup involving

pornography stand-ins). There is a definite interest in getting to know the

characters because they are endearing; but alas, there is no payoff in the end, just a hollowness echoing some jovial laughter.

Much of the problems arise from the oversaturation of characters. Billy Mack, a middle-aged pop star looking for a comeback, is sn interesting character played quite well by Bill Nighy. Many of the funniest scenes (not to mention a nice emotional payoff at the end of the film) involve him and his manager. High

Grant also is charming, but is forced to partake in one of the most superfluous dancing sequences seen in many a year. I cannot fault the actors, they do well with the little of which they have to work. But I would have preferred to see some of the roles excised in order to develop the others more fully. Even

Magnolia (P.T. Anderson's tour de force that relied on the connections between an ensemble of characters) allowed scenes and characters to evolve before

employing its sweeping camera movements and edits.

The intentions behind Love Actually are commendable. The opening VO set

against a nice montage of newly arrived air travelers leads the viewer to believe the complication of relationships of love might be explored. Sadly, that is never realized. The final product is nothing but a collection of cute moments that seem to be selling the idea of love rather than showing the depth of its effects.

Miami Rhapsody (1995)

Stands the test of time

[10/10 · 12 August 2003]

I watched this movie again, probably for the fourth time. I originally saw it in the theatre, and I do recall enjoying it. I have subsequently seen it every once in awhile on television. Upon viewing it again last night, I was struck at how well it has held up over the past eight years or so.

Yes, it does mimic the style usually associated with Woody Allen, but that is not a bad trait. There have been numerous films fashioned to replicate Allen's choices, most recently The Sidewalks of New York, the Ed Burns film from 2001.

And although Miami Rhapsody is not as good as Allen's best works, it is a well- structured and a well-acted piece.

Sarah Jessica Parker is well suited for the movie, and, as always, she plays her part well. Mrs. Parker is not an actress with great range, but when plugged into the right project she shines. Her delivery and timing in comedic roles has always been reliable, even if she has been in some very poor movies (e.g. If Lucy Fell, Hocus Pocus, Striking Distance). She has established herself as a star in the past few years on "Sex and the City," and her character in Miami Rhapsody is very similar, like Carrie's long-lost doppleganger living in Florida.

This film is definitely worth watching if you enjoy "Sex and the City;" and, the sharp writing and likable characters make the viewing of this movie extremely enjoyable, whether it is your first, second, or third time seeing it.