email-99 Reviews

Big Fish (2003)

Fine visual fantasy in allegory of men's emotions.

[9 March 2004]

Sometimes in your life, you remember a person for their life and sometimes you remember them for the stories about their life. There may be a little gap between the facts of their life, and there may be a yawning chasm, so you have to look at the person and the situation, and figure out if there's a big difference, and if it matters.

That's what is going on in Big Fish, the latest from the creator of the first Batman movie, Edward Scissorshands, Sleepy Hollow and the Planet of the Apes (2001).

Ed Bloom (Albert Finney as the mature Ed) is a tall-tale yarn spinner who has a favorite story about the big one that he caught, and then threw back. He's gotten through life quite well with a wink and a tale and a lot of hard work, and he's loved every minute of it. I agree with him, life's too short to not enjoy, and if it needs a bit of embellishment to get the joy out, then go with it.

Will (Billy Crudup) is his son, who feels that his dad is forever hiding behind the tale of the fish, and wants to get behind the story and get to know the real man who is his father. Will's a wire service journalist in Paris, and luckily he's married to a French woman Josephine (Marion Cotillard), who loves a story and a sentimental person full of love. On his own, Will would be too pragmatic for his own good, and would stay angry with him as he lay dying. Josephine melts the ice of resentment between father and son, and Will gives his father the love that the man has always sought from him.

There is lots of sentiment played out in the story, and fantasies of allegory are all around, as the reality of the relationships is defined by the relationships in dad's world. Along with the allegory, we get sentiment. Altogether, it's a heady story, and seems to sweep me along in waves of loving emotion. Ed Bloom is a man who loved with all his heart, but didn't say `I love you' easily. Instead, he made up a story that included a person in allegory, that was his way of paying homage.

In the end, everyone pays homage to him back, as he returns to his story, now to become the central figure for the first time. Along the way, he reveals that his big fish story was allegory for people close to home, and that he let things happen in a very complex way, with his simple love of people.

©2004, David C.P. Leland, All rights reserved. The right of David C.P. Leland to be identified as the author of this work has been asserted by him in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.

American Splendor (2003)

Funny that it's not a documentary, because they certainly had the people and the places.

[27 February 2004]

Ok, so maybe I ain't the kind of guy you'd expect to be reviewing a movie? Why not, I'm a guy who's seen a movie or two, from the inside as well as the cinema. I've even taken a couple of cinema classes, you know? So why not? I spend some days working on movie sets, being an extra, writing on my Handspring when I'm not acting, eating or talking. Or watching the movie get made, seeing the behind-the-scenes stuff get done.

These guys who did this movie, couldn't be more normal. Which means weird, like you and me, not making much of a big fuss over it. Just getting on with their lives, doin' the best they can. Normal stuff, you know? But told straight out, like no holds barred, tellin' it like it is, warts and all. Cleveland, that's it, just like Cleveland really is, a city without any glory, but it's real, and it makes it through every day, so it's there when you wake up in the morning, just the same old Cleveland.

Maybe the fact that it's about the reality of Harvey Pekar's life will turn some people off, but this movie is a stunning and vibrant piece of filmmaking. It has `immortal' written all over it, more than any version of `Death of a Salesman' ever could, my apologies to Henry Miller and Dustin Hoffman both, but this one is the unvarnished truth and reality. I don't want to beat this into the ground, but it's probably the Cleveland thing, about living close to a reality that doesn't need dressing up for the Clevelanders to feel like it's presentable. Paul Giamatti has not just portrayed Harvey, he's come to inhabit his being so that the whole of Harvey's existence seems to breathe through Paul's acting. It was fantastic to see them on the set together, and revealed how close to the bone this movie really is.

Actually, it's really about Cleveland, and about Harvey, so if those things get you down, that's not anybody's problem. Like Harvey's wife Joyce (played beautifully by Hope Davis) said, `all American cities depress me in the same way', and the gritty reality of American Splendor is universal, or at least `all American'. By examining the local reality extremely closely, we see the universal people, situations and truths, and that's the real beauty of this movie.

All the acting was superb, with quirks all over the place, and unvarnished conflicts that seemed to be three dimensional, reaching right out of the screen and into the auditorium during the screening. Funny that it's not a documentary, because they certainly had the people and the places. But it worked great as a docu-drama, and Harvey seemed to enjoy it too, so there you go, don't you? Can't go far wrong when the subject is an on-screen collaborator like Harvey. You couldn't go far wrong by going to see this in the cinema. I'll bet you will line up with me to buy the DVD when it's out, because this is better than Spinal Tap and Wayne's World rolled together.

©2004, David C.P. Leland, All rights reserved. The right of David C.P. Leland to be identified as the author of this work has been asserted by him in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.

Party Monster (2003)

This piece may never be a top grosser, probably due to it's subject matter, but I expect it to have long lasting cult status.

[25 January 2004]

There's nothing like a little murder to spice up a story, especially when it might otherwise be a tired tale of decadence and the downward spiral. Since the setup for the murder is in the advertisements, the only tension in the action is wondering when the murder will take place, and how the perpetrator will come out of it.

The perpetrator is played by with alacrity by that former "Home Alone" star, Macauley Culkin, in the role of party promoter Michael Alig. The fact that Alig had a bit of a fixation on then-child-star Culkin, back in the early 90s, adds a bizarre twist to the background of the story. Filmmaker Fenton Bailey has been quoted as saying that Culkin was the only choice for the role, which would not have been made without him. In fact, this $5Million feature has all the gloss and polish of any big budget film, and has every reason to deserve to be a hit. This is the real-life Rocky Horror, with Alig in the Frank- N-Furter role, writ large and backed by reality.

I'd been to the Limelight during that period, and it was a complete zoo of decadent excess. This was the highest expression of club-kid party culture I've ever seen in a fixed-venue situation, and set the tone for the warehouse raves in New York and across the country. In fact, my entree to the Limelight was through Keoki, who was a friend of a friend from S.F., though I was not able to meet up with the Super DJ during my all- night tour, on his list at every door, of New York's clubland and rave spots. I'd met him before, but was hoping for a rendezvous on his turf. Anyhow, the Limelight was "all that" and more, with the heaviest scene I'd seen at a club, anywhere, before or since.

Macauley has been reputed to have struggled a bit with substances, so it was scary seeing him thrown over the abyss into the pit that was the rave scene. I couldn't help feel fear for him, as his Alig stuck his straw right into the baggies, not even bothering with the nicety of cutting lines of speedballs out on a mirror. How easily it is for life to imitate art, and for a still-young actor to fall off the wagon when put into this kind of role. I think it might have been a good thing that this was shot on his home turf of NYC, so he was able to go home every night, rather than hanging out at some Hollywood lodging, vulnerable without his family structure around him.

Caulkin's portrayal of Alig was strong and scary. When he got confrontational with Wilson Cruz's "Angel", he stood up and made a poker-faced repetition of his demand for more drugs, shoving the demand for payment down Angel's throat in the process. The same poker-faced approach worked on Dylan McDermott's "Peter Gatien" in an early scene, and then Mac's face lit up like a child's when "Gatien" informed "Alig" that he had two more events at the Limelight during which to recooup the cost of damages. It was Alig's crucial inroad, and he worked it for all it was worth. The arrogance with which Caulkin portrayed Alig in that phase was part of what cemented the movie for me.

I never met Alig, but I saw alot of people like him in action. Mac was totally believable as him, from the grasping busboy pleading for advice off Seth Green's "James St.James" to the stoned-out arrogance of a kid ordering 300 hamburgers "to go" for his parade of raving followers. His joy at getting more money, more drugs, and getting the party started, were all so giddy and childlike and true-to-form for the rave scene, this was a believable portrayal all the way down the line.

I believed "Cristina" so much that I was blown out at the fact that she was played by Marilyn Manson. It was such a situation of "playing against type" for Manson, that I expect good things from him on film in the future. I wasn't expecting that to work at all, but I'm glad it did.

This piece may never be a top grosser, probably due to it's subject matter, and the lack of moralizing about the ending. But all that aside, I expect it to have long lasting cult status. It's a quality piece all the way through, and it will stand the test of time. I hope it gives a boost to the careers of everyone involved. ©David C.P. Leland, 2004. All rights reserved. The originator of this work asserts the right to be identified as the author of this work.

Love Actually (2003)

Pastiche of story snippets with an all-star cast.

[7 November 2003]

Review: Movie: Love Actually

Date: 06 November 03

Venue: DVD = "Definitive Love Actually DVD" - pre-release

====================== Watching this DVD was more revealing than I had imagined it would be. But

what it revealed was distinctly not what was intended. That in itself is a trouble sign to me, because of what was revealed.

This is portrayed to be a really disjointed pastiche of stories, where the viewers will only get short snippets of each story. Richard Curtis has written and directed this contender for the all-time Christmas feel-good film. The cast is large, but it cannot be said that it appears to have been an ensemble piece by any stretch. The cast does not all play together, or even get involved in action that relates to a single story line.

Instead, they play to a theme in small groups, that being: that we all need, are susceptible to, and even strive for love. Of course, love is a good thing, but when the idea that we shall all fall in love is the only unifying factor in a feature film with a starring cast of ten, and a speaking cast of 20 or more, it risks being less than loving for the audience.

The purpose of making a movie is to entertain, and I think it will be very

entertaining to see the all-star cast actually make this jigsaw puzzle of cameos gel into an entertaining piece of cinema. It's said to be a comedy, and I only hope that the full-length version is funny where it intends to be, and not funny for any of the wrong reasons. But based on the DVD, with the extended preview,

two trailers, the making-of documentary, and the character introductions, what's funny is that the producers expect that England and America will dutifully troop to their local multiplexes and pay to watch a bouquet of unrelated stories on a theme, with famous faces trooping across their screens in dizzying profusion.

The marketing DVD established the fact that the producers are banking on the

appeal of Hugh Grant. This is collaborated by the article printed in the same paper's weekly entertainment magazine, which had included the disk. I

sincerely hope that Grant is on screen for enough time to glue this film together by giving continuity to the story-line. I hope his part gives a unifying thread to the movie, because I appreciate there's alot of talent that's on show here, and wish the producers well.

But on the other hand I wish that the producers had used a subsidiary to make the film, as it is not an ensemble piece of the sort that "Welcome to LA", "The Big Chill", or "Day for Night" were. Here, the disparate stories are not likely to do anything other than distract the viewer and detract from each other.

In America (2002)

It's the kind of story I'd want to have be told, if it were mine

[30 October 2003]

When people get together to believe in a storyline, it becomes their reality. It doesn't matter if this is what we call religion, or if it's your culture's way of doing things, or the version of reality that we've all agreed makes up our world, the common thread is that we all believe in it. So when a group of people who are living together in a building in Manhattan get together to believe that there will be a good outcome for a family among them, and that becomes the reality, it should come as no surprise to us that it comes true.

This story is about a young Irish family that finds themselves "In America", in both senses of the word. They illegally immigrate, coming in through Canada, and end up in an upper Manhattan building full of junkies and other destitute souls. This house is both haunted and enchanted for them, revealing the magic that comes from conquering their fears, first about those around them, and then about the lost child of their past. And this is no 'Ellis Island' retrospective, but a modern-day story on every level, based on current situations.

The tale takes us through the highs and lows of emotion in this family's struggle, without being smarmy or ridiculous. The tears come from true sadness and grief, and the laughs come from honest mirth and genuine relief.

In the end, the greatest magic is worked, through love between the most unexpected people, and there is good in the world. Some of that is directly related in the film, with the giving and receiving parties shown in alternation. Some of that good comes from off-camera, such as the fact that our family's father finally lands a part in a play, where we've seen neither the audition nor the casting of the part.

This film was beautifully made, with darkness enveloping the situation of the protagonists, and lightness filling their world as love comes into their lives.

I recommend this film, not because it's got feel-good factor, but because it brings to life the struggles of modern New York, and ties together disparate threads to a cohesive storyline. It's the kind of story I'd want to have be told, if it were mine, and I thank the producers for having gotten this one out so I could see it.

Bollywood Queen (2002)

an interesting story that was well written, shot interestingly, and acted very well.

[28 October 2003]

Review: movie: Bollywood Queen

Date: 23 Oct 03

venue: Odeon, Kingston upon Thames, Surrey, England

===========================> Recently I saw the debut of Preeya Kalidas as leading lady in a general-release motion picture, and she carried her part off very well. This was not just a piece of fluff, but a theme that Preeya has worked on previously - East meets West in London, not with ease, but with a good ending. She is saying this to us, that we have to move into the modern world, all of us, white and asian. She is speaking articulately, and making the lesson easy to take, by sugar-coating the pill. And she is quite the sweetie herself - emoting and portraying, singing and dancing, and giving her characterisation a good range of expression.

The story was about Geena, an ethnic Indian young woman, who breaks away from her family and its expectations when she falls in love with a white boy called Jay. Not to mention that she's from East London and he's from the West Country, so there's every division and dichotomy in modern English life on display here.

But it's not a simple re-telling of Romeo and Juliette, this is an original story, written by the director/producer Jeremy Wooding and Neil Spencer, that gets to the modern situations and dynamics. But there is some interfamily conflict, as Jay's brother gets him involved in a night-time raid on Geena's family's clothing factory, and there is a knife fight in the dark between a brother of Geena's and Jay's brother.

This is also quite a Bollywood styled production, with key moments of the story punctuated by a song - often sung by Preeya - and a large-company Indian dance routine to go with it. These usually work very well, but there was a portion of one number that featured Geena, where for a long portion of the number she was given neither lines nor clear portrayal to put across, and the effect is awkward. Aside from that, Preeya keeps the action flowing very nicely, and keeps her character portrayal very full and multifaceted.

The filming was atmospheric and moody at times, showing us the heaviness of London's East End. There were also times of brightness and dazzle, and some cinematography that was startling and beautiful. Yet still, there was countryside shot in soft focus, and that made it contrast with the harsh, drab city all the more.

At the end of the movie, I walked out feeling satisfied that I had been shown an interesting story that was well written, shot interestingly, and acted very well.

The Man Who Sued God (2001)

It's a drama with comedic moments and a romantic element, in a warm and compact package, which is a good thing.

[29 September 2003]

When events happen that are not within predictable range, and there seems nothing for it but accept it as an act of god, many people accept it as inevitable. That's well and good for little things, but not when the event is ruinous, destructive or major. And especially when it's an event that causes a loss' where that loss was covered by insurance.

That sort of loss befell our man, played with insight, verve and delicacy by Billy Connolly, in 'The Man Who Sued God'. What's important about this movie is that it's not about Billy Connolly, it's not him mugging for the camera and pulling stunts. It's a drama about a man in a tough situation, with romantic and comedic elements included. It's well written, played with truth and energy by the entire cast, and shot vividly, both for the exterior scenes of 'beautiful OZ', and the interiors, where so much of the action takes place.

He's just had his fishing boat blown out of the water by a direct hit from lightening, and it's all covered by insurance. Until the small print comes into play, and the company refuses to pay, saying that the lightning strike was an act of God. There is no other recourse than the Courts, and our man sues God for the loss of his boat and livelihood.

He sues all denominations of religion, as the servants and agents of God on Earth, and they all hire lawyers. It begins to look a bit like 'The Verdict' for a while, but the interplay between the different religions turns the action from that path, prior to deja vu setting in. There's courtroom drama that rings true, and interpersonal that carries the story forward without resorting to artificial devices. It's a drama with comedic moments and a romantic element, in a warm and compact package, which is a good thing.

All in all, a feel-good movie without the smarminess -you can feel good about liking this one.